Mahendra Dayal, J. - (1.) I have heard Shri Brijesh Kumar Saxena, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri M.G. Tripathi, learned counsel for the respondent No.3 and perused the record.
(2.) The petitioner is a tenant in House No.589-Kha/42 situate at Village Sarpatganj, Telibagh, District Lucknow. The aforesaid house was let out to the petitioner in the month of November, 1987. The area, in which, the house is situated, fell within the Municipal limits in the year 1994 and the first assessment was made on 01.04.1994. The respondent No.3, who is the owner-landlord of the said premises, issued a notice on 01.11.1995 demanding rent @ Rs.250/- per month and also terminated the tenancy. The notice was sent on 02.11.1995, by registered post but did not return. The suit was filed by the respondent No.3 in the month of December 1995.
(3.) The petitioner contested the suit and filed written statement. It was pleaded by the petitioner that the house was constructed prior to 1980 and was let out to him on 01.12.1987. Thus, in the year 1995, when the suit was filed, more than ten years had already elapsed from the date of the construction of the building and thus, the Rent Control Act was applicable to the building. It was also said that the entire amount including the arrears of rent, interest, costs, etc., was deposited under Sub-section (4) of Section 20 of the Act and, therefore, no decree for eviction could be passed against him. However, the petitioner pleaded that the rate of rent was only Rs.15/- per month. The petitioner also pleaded that no notice was ever received by the petitioner or refused by him. Thus, there was no service of notice.;