Rakesh Tiwari, J. - (1.) THESE three connected petitions have been filed by the tenant, challenging the decree of eviction passed by the Trial Court dated 29.11.2001 and that of the Revisional Court dated 29.5.2003, for three shops under her tenancy in premises No. 26/33 Birhana Road, Kanpur Nagar of the Courts below. As common judgment on common points of law have been challenged by the petitioners on common ground, they are being decided by this common judgment. A simple notice under section 106 of the T.P. Act dated 21.10.1997, duly served upon the tenant on 8.11.1997, the landlord terminated the tenancy of the tenants demanding arrears of rent from 1.6.1997 to 8.12.1997 @ Rs. 25.26p. p.m. and the water tax. Since the tenancy consists of three separate shops, three Suit Nos. 295/98, 296, 98 and 297/98 were filed by the landlord before the Court of J.S.C.C. Kanpur Nagar against petitioner No. 1 for eviction on the ground of default and material alteration. The landlord/plaintiff No. 1 claimed exemption from the operation of the Act No. 13 of 72 (herein after referred as Act) being Charitable Public Trust, it was also pleaded that the tenant has illegally covered chabutara in front of shop Nos. 6 and 7 without landlord's consent, causing disfigurement and damage to the property.
(2.) THE tenant contested the suit and filed his written statement admitting the service of notice as well as ownership of Ganesh Prasar Dalai Dharmshala but alleged that the said trust is a private trust, hence the Act is applicable. It was stated therein that construction over the chabutara was done with the consent of one of the trustees Sri Hira Babu. All the three suits were connected together by the J.S.C.C., Kanpur and were decided by a common judgment dated 29.11.2001. The revision preferred by tenant too has been dismissed by the Revisional Court by a common judgment dated 29.5.2003.
(3.) THE contention of the Counsel for the petitioner is that petitioner No. 1 is tenant of the shop in dispute since 1949 and has continuously paid rent of the shop upto 1994. Thereafter, the landlord refused to accept the rent and as such it was served by money order, which was returned with endorsement of the post office "left" hence the tenant petitioner was constrained to deposit the rent under section 20(4) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, hereinafter called as the Act.;