JUDGMENT B. K. Rathi, J.
1. The opposite party filed a suit for eviction of the applicant from the shop in dispute of House No. 23/47/14A, Mohalla Allahpur, Allahabad and for recovery of arrears of rent. The suit has been decreed by the Judge, Small Causes Court (Additional District Judge, Court No. 11, Allahabad) by judgment and decree dated 13.5.2002. Aggrieved by it the present revision has been preferred.
2. I have heard Shri Pankaj Mithal, learned counsel for the revisionist and Shri M. K. Gupta for the opposite party No. 2 and perused the record.
3. It is contended that the suit was filed on the ground of default in payment of rent and it is admitted that U. P. Act No, XIII of 1972, is applicable to the premises in dispute ; That it is also not disputed that the said Act was applicable at the date of commencement of the tenancy of the applicant. That there is no allotment of the shop in favour of the applicant and, therefore, the agreement of the tenancy is illegal and void ab-initio and no suit can be filed on its basis as has been held by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Nootan Kumar v. A.D.J., Banda, 1993 (2) AWC 1090 (FB) : 1993 (2) ARC 204 (FB). That, therefore, the trial court has erred in decreeing the suit.
4. As against this, it has been contended on behalf of the opposite party that the tenancy is admitted to the applicant in this case. That in para 1 of the written statement, the applicant has admitted the para 1 of the plaint and has further stated that it is admitted that he is tenant of the plaintiff at the rate of Rs. 500 per month : That in the written statement, it has not been pleaded that the tenancy is illegal or void : That this point, therefore, cannot be raised for the first time in the revision. In support of the argument, the learned counsel has referred to my own decision in the case of Yogendra Pal Singh (Dr.) v. Sri Prem Singh, 2001 (3) AWC 1954 ; 2001 (2) ARC 45. In this case, after considering the decision of the Nootan Kumar (supra) and other decisions, I have held that if the tenancy is admitted, the suit for eviction after terminating the tenancy is maintainable and can be decreed.
5. In view of my own decision, I do not find any ground to interfere in the judgment and the decree passed by the trial court. No other point has been raised. Therefore, the revision is without merit and is dismissed.
6. In the last the learned counsel for the applicant pleaded that the premises in dispute is a business premises in which the revisionist is running a photography shop. That sometime is required to shift the shop as it will effect his livelihood. I agree with the contention of the learned counsel for the revisionist. The revisionist is therefore, allowed one year time from today to vacate the shop in dispute subject to the following conditions :
(1) That the revisionist within one month from today file an affidavit before the court below undertaking to vacate the premises in dispute after the expiry of period of one year from the date of this Judgment and to deliver its vacant and peaceful possession to the plaintiff opposite party.
(2) That the revisionist will deposit the decretal amount and advance rent for a period of one year within one month from today.