Hon’ble Prakash Krishna, J.—All these three revisions were heard together and they arise out of judgment dated 31st of May, 2011 passed by the Judge, Small Causes Court/Additional District Judge, Court No. 10, Kanpur Nagar in SCC Suit No. 56 of 2004.

2. Revision No. 327 of 2011 has been preferred by the tenant against his eviction decree, passed in favour of two landlords namely Rajendra Prasad Agrawal and Om Prakash Agrawal. It was treated as lead case by the learned counsel for the parties. The defendant tenant who has filed the above revision, hereinafter referred to as tenant and the plaintiff landlords hereinafter referred to as landlord No. 1 Rajesh Prasad Agrawal and landlord No. 2 Om Prakash Agrawal.

3. The property No. 562 A, S.K. Building Rail Bazar situate just opposite to Kanpur Railway Junction, a three storeyed building is the subject-matter of the dispute between the parties. Indisputably, the landlords are owners of the property in question. It consists of one big hall on ground floor, store and kitchen, twelve rooms on the first floor and one big hall on the second floor. In the year 1946 the said property was let out on a monthly rent of Rs. 1,000/- to late Munshi Ram Kohali, father of the present tenant, by Kamta Prasad, the ancestors of landlords.

4. SCC suit No. 56 of 2004 giving rise to these revisions was instituted by the landlord Nos. 1 and 2 against the tenant for eviction on the ground that the building in dispute was taken on rent for running a hotel business and it has been put to inconsistent user by opening a bar therein without consent of the landlord as envisaged in Section 20(2) (d) of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972.

5. The suit has been filed on the pleas inter alia that the tenant has paid the rent up to 31st December, 1979 and has deposited the rent in Court w.e.f. 1st of October, 1979 to 31st of December, 1979 in Misc. Case No. 84/70 of 1980 and thereafter he has not paid any rent. The tenant has also started the hotel business in the accommodation in suit in the name and style of Central Hotel and also established a dormitory in the big hall by letting it out unauthorizedly without there being any permission by the landlords. The tenant has also started a bar by obtaining a bar licence. A legal notice dated 27.6.2004 was given. It was replied on 17th of July, 2004 on incorrect facts. It was further pleaded that arrears of rent w.e.f. 1st of September, 2001 to 2nd of August, 2004 amounting to Rs. 35,064.50 is within time and the arrears of rent w.e.f. 1st of January, 1980 to 31st of August, 1981 being time barred is not being claimed.

6. By way of amendment in the plaint para 6A was added therein which provides that since the very inception of tenancy the defendant (tenant) is using and utilizing the entire accommodation in suit for hotel, restaurant and bar purposes. As per the Government order of the State, hotel business shall be deemed to be a factory and as such is exempt from the operation of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972.

7. The suit was contested by denying the plaint allegations but the relationship of landlord and tenant was admitted. The liability of water tax at the rate of 18 per cent was denied. In para 4 it was stated that no portion of tenanted accommodation is being used and utilized as dormitory, contrary to system of hotel business. The customers are permitted to stay one or two days. It was further stated that running of bar is not against public policy as the same is being done as per licence granted by the State of U.P.. The plea that the tenant is in arrears of rent was refuted by pleading that he has paid a sum of Rs. 2,84,000/- to the Cantonment Board as per the notice issued under Section 65/257 of the Cantonment Act of 1924 beginning from 10th of June, 1980 to 15th of March, 2004 as detailed in para 10 of the written statement. It was further stated that the cantonment is realising water tax at the rate of 11.50 per cent and that the defendant(tenant) is entit