VIRENDRA KUMAR-II,J. - (1.) The present second appeal has been preferred assailing impugned judgment and decree dated 27.03.2001 delivered by the Court of Additional District Judge, III, Sitapur in Civil Appeal No. 6 of 2001: Ganesh Prasad Mishra and others Vs. Radha Krishna Ji Mandir, Kamlapur. The first appellate Court has set aside judgment and decree dated 19.12.2000 delivered by the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Biswan Sitapur in Civil Suit No. 17 of 1994 (Radha Krishnaji Virajman Mandir, Kamlapur Vs. Ganesh Prasad Master and another. Learned trial Court vide judgment dated 19.12.2000 had decreed the suit of the plaintiff/appellant.
(2.) The present appeal admitted on the substantial question of law, Serial No. E, F, G, H formulated in the grounds of the appeal vide order dated 03.07.2001 passed by this Court. The relevant substantial questions of law are as follows: "E. Whether the provision of U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting Rent and Eviction) Act 1972 is applicable in the present case ? F. Whether the notice dated 3.8.1993 fulfills the requirement of Section 106 of Transfer of Property Act ? G. Whether in the present case notice under Section 106 Transfer of Property Act was required ? H. Whether the judgment of the lower appellate court is vitiated as the lease in favour of the Defendant/ respondents was compulsorily registerable under Section 17 of the Registration Act as it was for a period of more than year ?"
(3.) It is contended by the appellant that appellant/plaintiff filed Civil Suit for eviction and damage for wrongful use and occupation (mesne profits), being owner of the disputed shop. The defendant no.1/respondent Ganesh Prasad Mishra was tenant at the rate of Rs. 7 per month. Defendant no.2/respondent is son of defendant no.1 and he is running the business of Cycles in the disputed shop. The defendants have no authority to make alteration or addition in the shop. They had dug the shop from inside and changed its original shape. The plaintiff/appellant tried to restrain them, from altering the position and the shape of the shop. The respondent/defendants did not pay heed to the objection raised by the plaintiff. Therefore, their tenancy was terminated through registered notice and appellant asked them to vacate the shop on 31.08.1993 and to pay the amount of damages. The respondents did not comply the notice, therefore, Suit was instituted in the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division). Therefore, relief has been sought that judgment and decree passed by appellate Court be set aside and judgment and decree dated 19.12.2000 passed by the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Biswan Sitapur in Civil Suit No. 17/94 be restored and affirmed.;