A.P.Misra - (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties at length. The opposite party was served and after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the revision is being disposed of finally at the admission stage.
(2.) THE main ground of the applicant is that since the premises in question was let out to a factory and, therefore, was exempted under the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') and, therefore, the suit which is decreed by the trial court, was illegal. It is further contended that since the amount of Rs. 27,000/- was paid in the year 1984 and 1986 well within the time of three years and finding by the trial court that there was no document on the record of any payment during this period was illegal and is not sustainable. Finally it was urged that UPSIDC was the owner of the land from whom the applicant has taken the land, having not been impleaded the present suit is not maintainable. Coming to the first point Section 2 (1) (c) and (d) of the Act makes the position very clear. It provides that nothing in this Act shall apply to any building used or intended to be used as a factory within the meaning of the Factories Act, 1948 where the plant of such factory is leased out along with the building. Therefore, it is clear that it is not merely when the factory which takes on lease of any building is exempted but it is where the plant of such factory is also leased out along with the building. It is also not in dispute that none of the plant of the factory was leased out, therefore, the exemption as provided under section 2 (1) and (c) of the Act is inapplicable. Similar is the position under sub-section (d) of Section 2 (1) of the Act where any building used or intended to be used for any other industrial purpose (that is to say, for the purpose of manufacture, preservation or processing of any goods) and where the plant and apparatus installed for such purpose in the building is leased out along with the building, is provided. Here also not only the building should be leased out but the plant and apparatus must be leased out before the exemption could be attracted. In the present case since only the building was leased out the exemption as claimed by the applicant cannot be accepted Coming to the next ground finding was recorded by the trial court that the defendant has not filed any document to show that the amount of rent for 3 years has been paid. What is urged that Rs. 27,000/- was paid in the year 1984 and 1986 within the period of three years and, therefore, the question whether the said amount was towards rent for a period after three years or for a period of earlier to that was a question to depend on the evidence produced by the defendant. The burden was on the defendant to prove that the rent was for a period of 3 years. It is not in dispute that the claim of the landlord was that there was an arrear of rent since 1981 and the only payment which is made by the said arrears was Rs. 27,000/-. It is true that while decreeing the suit, the court has to confine the decree for a period within three years' from the date of the institution of the suit. However, a payment of rent in the year 1984 and 1986 cannot be taken to be payment for this period only. There is nothing on the record nor before this Court to prove that such a payment was only for this period of three years. Since defendant failed to prove this, I do not find any error was committed by the trial court in recording the finding to that effect.
(3.) FINALLY coming to the next point that since UPSIDC was not impleaded, who was the owner of the land from whom the respondent has taken the land, the suit could not be decreed. It is not in dispute in this case the applicant admitted the respondent as the landlord and he has being paying rent to him, hence this argument is devoid of any merit and is not sustainable. In view of this he cannot declaim that respondent is not his landlord. In the end, the learned counsel for the applicant urged that since it is a factory some reasonable time be given for vacating the premises in question. I feel that the applicant shall vacate the premises in dispute within three months from today subject to an undertaking given in the trial court within a period of one month that it shall handover the vacant possession to the respondent and shall also deposit the entire decretal amount within six weeks from today in the trial court.;