- (1.) THE dispute relates to a residential accommodation comprising of two rooms on the western side of ground floor, part of the house situated at Municipal Lane, Pilibhit which were under the tenancy of the petitioner. Sri Bhagwat Swaroop, respondent no.1 (now deceased and substituted by legal heirs) was the owner and landlord of the said accommodation. SCC Suit no. 23 of 1989 was instituted by him alleging that the house was assessed for municipal tax for the first time in April 1980 and therefore, Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as "Act 1972") is not applicable thereto. The petitioner tenant committed default in payment of rent since 15.06.1988, despite notice. Therefore, his tenancy was terminated vide notice dated 14.02.1989. The suit for eviction on the ground of default, thus, was instituted by respondent landlord.
(2.) PETITIONER contested the suit filing written statement, stating that the accommodation in question is an old building and let out to him on 17.06.1968, on yearly basis, for doing manufacturing business. Tenancy was initially on a rent of Rs.35/ - per month and for five years period, permitting the petitioner to install a printing press. Rent was enhanced from time to time. Since it is an old construction and petitioner is under tenancy therein since 1968, the building is within the ambit of Act 1972. It is said that the petitioner continuously offered rent but the landlord stopped accepting rent since June 1988. The notice given by landlord was illegal and the suit is liable to be dismissed.
(3.) THE Trial Court formulated five issues as under : XXX XXX XXX Issue no. -1 was adjudicated holding that Act 1972 was not applicable to the disputed accommodation. Issue no. -2 was decided in favour of landlord holding that the "printing press" was not "manufacturing process" and therefore six months notice under section 106 Transfer of Property Act was not required. Issue no. -3 was also decided in favour of landlord holding that there was default in payment of rent and defendant's defence was liable to be struck of under order 15 Rule 5 C.P.C. Issue no. -4 was also returned in favour of landlord holding that the Trial Court has jurisdiction to decide the matter. Therefore, the suit was decreed by granting relief of eviction and recovery of arrears of rent and damages etc. vide judgment dated 17.08.1998. Thereagainst the petitioner tenant preferred S.C.C. Revision No. 57 of 1998 which has also be dismissed by the Revisional Court vide judgment and order 16.11.2009 passed by Additional District Judge, Court No. -4, Pilibhit. Hence this writ petition.;