S.U.Khan, J. - (1.) This is tenant's writ petition arising out of suit for eviction filed by landlady respondent No 3 Smt. Urmila Devi against him in the form of SCC Suit No. 45 of 1982. The suit was dismissed on 26.10.1985 by III Civil Judge/JSCC Muzaffar Nagar Against the said judgment and decree landlady respondent No. 3 filed SCC Revision No. 86 of 1985. V Additional District Judge, Muzaffar Nagar through judgment and order dated 11.1.1988, allowed the revision, set-aside the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court and decree the suit of plaintiff respondent No. 3 for eviction and recovery of arrears of rent. This writ petition by tenant is directed against the aforesaid judgment and order of the revisional Court.
(2.) Even the trial Court that ten years period of exemption from application of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 as provided under Section 2(2) thereof had not expired when suit was filed hence the Act was not applicable on the building in dispute. The tenant pleaded that there was an oral agreement that he would not be evicted for five years and that shop in dispute along with Varandah in front thereof was given to him on rent for cycle repairing and stove manufacturing in June 1980. Tenant further pleaded that there was an oral agreement that six months notice will be necessary for termination of tenancy.
(3.) Husband of the landlady appeared as witness of the plaintiff landlady. The Trial Court placing reliance upon AIR 1980 SC 1109 (N.B. Banerji v. Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribagh) held that it was essential for the landlady to appear in witness box and evidence of her husband was not admissible. In the aforesaid authority of the Supreme Court, no such thing has been held. The only thing, which has been held in the said authority is that no evidence can be adduced to prove a fact which has not been pleaded. On the other hand the Supreme Court in Ram Kubai v. H.D. Chanakya, AIR 1999 SC 3089, has held that landlord need not necessarily enter the witness box.;