Umesh Chandra Srivastava, J. - (1.) The petitioner has filed the present writ petition with prayer issuing a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned judgement and orders dated 23.05.2016 and 05.07.2017 passed by the opposite party nos. 2 and 1 contained as Annexure nos. 1 and 2 respectively to the writ petition.
(2.) Facts giving rise to present writ petition in brief are that respondent no. 3 filed a suit against petitioner for eviction and recovery of arrears of rent and damages with allegations that he is the owner/landlord of the disputed shop which he has purchased from Vijay Bhadur son of Raj Bahadur by a registered sale deed dated 07.10.2002. He had stated that petitioner was the tenant of the shop in dispute from the time of former landlord at the rate of Rs. 500/- per month. He had further stated that petitioner defaulted in payment of rent of the disputed shop since 01.07.1998 and even he did not pay the rent to him after the house being sold to him. He had also stated that petitioner had information of sale of house to him. He had further stated that when petitioner did not pay rent to him, he terminated his tenancy by a registered notice dated 07.02.2003 which was served upon him on 11.02.2003 and asked him to vacate the shop and pay arrears of rent and petitioner having failed to comply with the notice, suit was filed. He had also stated that shop in dispute being construction of the year 1996, provisions of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 were not applicable to it.
(3.) Petitioner contested the suit inter alia on the ground that shop under dispute is not a new construction rather it being old of the year 1957 when the house of which the shop in dispute is a part constructed, provisions of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 were applicable to it. It was also his contention that rate of rent of shop is not Rs. 500/- per month, it is Rs. 250/- per month only, and that he has not defaulted in payment of rent. He had further contended that he had paid the rent of shop in dispute to former landlord upto October, 2004 for which he had not issued the rent receipt and when he refused to receive rent of November 2004, he moved application in Court and started depositing rent therein. Thus, his contention was that he being not defaulter was not liable to eviction and nothing was also recoverable from him as arrear of rent and damages as he was regularly depositing the rent in Court even after the filing of the suit.;