- (1.) RAKESH Tiwari, J. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.
(2.) THIS writ petition is directed against the judgment and decree dated 5. 5. 2007 in SCC Revision No. 7 of 2004, Mahesh Chandra v. Dinesh Kumar Porwal and another, passed by Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court ando. 1, Etawah, as well as the judgment and decree dated 6. 5. 2004 in S. C. C. Suit No. 19 of 1994, Dinesh Kumar Porwal v. Mahesh Chandra, passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Etawah. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that respondent No. 3, is landlord of the shop in dispute in which the petitioner claims to be the tenant at the rate of Rs. 150 per month. The shop in dispute is said to have been purchased by respondent No. 3 from erstwhile landlord Laxman Singh son of Munai Singh by registered sale-deed dated 9. 3. 1994. Landlord respondent No. 3, filed S. C. C. Suit No. 19 of 1994, Dinesh Kumar v. Mahesh Chandra, in the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Etawah, on the ground that the petitioner had made default in payment of rent/damages for use and occupation of the tenament. It was averred in the plaint that a notice was sent to the petitioner on 13. 7. 1994 but no rent was paid by the petitioner inspite of service of notice under Section 20 of U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972.
(3.) THE petitioner tenant contested the case by filing his written statement inter alia denying any service of notice as will as default in payment of rent. THE case of the petitioner was that respondent No. 3, had neither given any notice/ information in respect of purchase of the shop in dispute nor had given any notice under Section 20 (2) of the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, read with Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, for termination of his tenancy from the said shop. The petitioner claims that he has deposited all the admitted rent due and cost of the suit on the first date of hearing claiming the benefit of Section 20 (4) of U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 and that it is also alleged that the petitioner has continued to pay further rent as per the provisions of Order XV, Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure.;