- (1.) The petitioner is tenant of a shop located at Mandi Sriganj Bada Bazar Shikohabad, District Firozabad. Apprehending ejectment from accommodation in question in view of order dated 29.07.2002 passed by Small Cause Court, Firozabad in SCC Suit No. 01 of 1996 whereby petitioner's defence has been struck off and revisional order dated 25.09.2003, whereby the Additional District Judge, Court No. 2, Firozabad has dismissed his Revision No. 10 of 2002, the present writ petition has been filed assailing both the aforesaid orders seeking a writ of certiorari for quashing the same. The respondent No. 3, admittedly, is the owner and landlord of disputed accommodation. By notice dated 01.11.1995, he (the landlord) alleged default in payment of rent on the part of petitioner, demanded the same and also determined tenancy. Consequently, SCC Suit No. 01 of 1996 was filed by respondent No. 3 seeking eviction of petitioner from shop in dispute as also arrears of rent, damages etc. The respondent No. 3 claimed non payment of rent by petitioner since 01.03.1994. It also alleged that shop in dispute being a new construction, completed in 1990, is exempted from the provisions of U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act, 1972"). The rate of rent between the parties was not disputed and it was admitted by both the sides being Rs. 400/- per month. The petitioner contested the suit by filing his written statement dated 12.12.1996 alleging that rent upto September, 1995 was already paid but thereafter respondent No. 3 declined to accept rent, hence it was deposited in court under Section 30 of Act, 1972 in Misc. Case No. 92 of 1995. The petitioner claims to have paid rent upto December, 2000 in the aforesaid proceedings under Section 30 of Act, 1972.
(2.) The respondent No. 3 filed an application under Order XV Rule 5 C.P.C. claiming that admitted rent has not been paid by tenant and, therefore, his defence must be struck off. It was contested by petitioner. The Trial Court vide order dated 29.07.2002 allowed application of respondent No. 3-landlord and struck off petitioner's defence, where against petitioner filed SCC Revision No. 10 of 2002 which has been rejected by Revisional Court by impugned judgment dated 25.09.2003.
(3.) Sri Arvind Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner has not disputed before this Court that provisions of Act, 1972 are not applicable to the shop in dispute and this Court has to examine the only question, whether petitioner's defence has been rightly struck off or not.;