Manoj Kumar Gupta, J. - (1.) The instant revision is directed against the judgement and decree dated 27.10.2015 passed by Judge Small Causes in SCC Suit No. 26 of 2008 decreeing the suit for recovery of arrears of rent and for eviction and also awarding mesne profit/damages till delivery of actual possession.
(2.) The suit was instituted by the plaintiff-respondents (for short 'the plaintiffs') against Ved Prakash Dwivedi, the predecessor-in-interest of the revisionists. Ved Prakash Dwivedi (hereinafter referred to as 'the defendant') died during pendency of the suit and in his place the revisionists were substituted. The suit was founded on the allegation that the demised premises, which is a shop having four shutters, is on rent with the defendant at the rate of Rs.1800/- per month. It is part of Building bearing No.37/44-A, Sheo Charan Lal Road, Allahabad. The shop in tenancy of defendant was constructed post 1986 and thus beyond the purview of U.P. Act No.13 of 1972 (for short 'the Act'). The tenancy of the defendant having been terminated by a valid notice, he is liable to eviction.
(3.) The suit was contested by the defendant by filing written statement in which he admitted that the rate of rent is Rs.1800/-. He alleged that in fact the shop has five shutters instead of four and that the provisions of the Act are fully applicable. In additional plea, it was asserted that the building No.37/44-A, Sheo Charan Lal Road, is a very old building. Its' old municipal number is 37, which got changed to 44. It was at that time recorded in the name of Mahadeo Prasad, ancestor of the plaintiff. In khasra of Nagar Nigam for the period 1972-1979, it has been recorded as 44-A in view of partition of the building between heirs of Late Mahadeo Prasad. At that time there was also increase in annual value of the Building. The Building had not been demolished nor any new construction has been made. In khasras of 1979-2008, name of the plaintiffs came to be recorded against Building No.37/44A and there is nothing to prove that the building was re-constructed or any map for such purpose was got sanctioned. He had been depositing rent under Section 30 of the Act in Misc. Case No. 93 of 2008 and there is no default in payment of rent consequently the suit is liable to be dismissed.;