D.C.SRIVASTAVA,J. - (1.) WITH the consent of the parties Counsel this revision is being disposed of finally at the admission stage.
(2.) THE brief facts are that the opposite party of this revision is the landlord of the two go-downs having 5000 metric tons capacity which were let out to the revisionist on monthly rent of Rs. 17,871. The rent fell due from the revisionist, which was not paid. Consequently a notice of demand of rent and terminating the tenancy was sent, which was served upon the revisionst. Despite service of notice neither the rent was paid nor the go-downs were va­cated, hence the suit for eviction, recovery of arrear of rent, mesne profits etc was filed. It was alleged in the plaint that the two go-downs were constructed in the end of October, 1979 and the two go-downs were first assessed in the Nagar Palika record on 30-10-89 with effect from 1.11.89, hence the provisions of U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972 are not applicable. Previously the mesne profits were claimed at the rental rate of Rs. 17,871 per month, but subsequently the mesne profits were claimed at the rate of Rs. 35,000 per month after seeking amendment in the plaint. The suit was resisted by the revisionist-tenant on various grounds. It was denied that the go-downs are not covered by U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972. The validity of notice was also challenged. It was also challenged that the suit is barred by Section 69 of the Partnership Act inasmuch as the landlord's firm is unregistered. It was also denied that the mesne profits can be claimed at the rate of Rs. 35,000 per month. The two go-downs are governed by U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972. Initially the agreed rate of rent was 48 paise per sq. feet, which was enhanced to 60 paise per sq. feet. The alleged arrears of rent were also denied.
(3.) THE learned lower court decreed the suit observing that the go-downs were not covered by U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972 and there was no invalidity in the notice of eviction. The mesne profits were awarded at the rate of Rs. 35,000 per month. The plea of bar of Section 69 of the Partnership Act was repelled by the lower Court. The plea of non-joinder of necessary party was also repelled, so also the plea of the revisionists that they are entitled to the benefit of Section 20(4) of U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972. In this revision only four points were urged by the learned counsel for the revisionist. The first contention was that the go downs are not governed by U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972. This contention was repelled by the learned lower Court. I do not find any illegality in this finding. Annexure-1 is the agreement between the parties dated 23.10.78. In this it was mentioned that the party No. 2 has agreed to construct the desired go-downs. This shows that till 23rd October, 1978 the go-downs were not constructed. The second agreement (Annexure-2) is dated 16th February, 1979 in which the go-downs were taken on rent at the rate of 48 paise per sq. feet. It was contended that in the notice (Annexure-3) it is mentioned by the landlord that the go-downs were constructed in August, 1979, but this seems to be a typographical error. Annexure-1 was itself entered into on 23rd October, 1978, whereunder the landlord agreed to con­struct the go-downs. It is, therefore, incorrect to hold that the go-downs were constructed in August, 1979. Annexure-4 is the copy of the plaint. In para­graph 3 of it there is mention that the go-downs were completed in the end of October, 1979 and the first assessment was made with effect from Novem­ber, 1979. The trial court also found that the first assessment was made in the end of October, 1979 which came into force from 1.11.1979. The suit was filed on 20.8.89. On the date neither from October, 1979 nor from November, 1979 ten years' period was complete, hence there is no error in the finding of the court below that the go-downs were not governed by U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972. Besides this factual finding, U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972 was amended and the Amending Act received the assent of the Governor of Uttar Pradesh on 15.2.95 and the same was published in the Gazette on 17.2.95. A provision has been inserted in Section 2 of the previous Act to the following effect: "The following clauses shall be inserted, namely, (g) any building, whose monthly rent exceeds two thousand rupees." ;