JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Sri Piyush Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Atul Dayal, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Manish Tandon, learned counsel for the respondents.

2. Present petition has been for setting aside the impugned order dated 15.12.2022 passed by the Court of Judge, Small Causes Court, Kanpur Nagar in S.C.C. Suit No. 188 of 2014 (Mohd. Shahid vs. Rajendra and others) and impugned order dated 15.3.2023 passed by the District Judge, Kanpur in S.C.C. Revision No. 26 of 2023 (Rajendra & others vs. Mohd Shahid)

3. Since, only legal question is involved in the present petition, therefore, with the consent of parties, petition is being decided at the admission stage itself.

4. Learned counsel for petitioners submitted that plaintiff-respondent has served legal notice dated 10.4.2014 claiming himself to be the owner of house in question on the basis of sale deed executed on 31.3.2013 by Jasmeet Singh. On the very same basis, he has set up his case and filed suit. In the plaint, it is clearly mentioned that house in question has been purchased by Jasmeet Singh. He next submitted that under Section 20(2) (a) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972), notice is required within 30 days. In the present case, as the notice was sent on the basis of ownership of sale deed executed by Jasmeet Singh, therefore, it is not fulfilling the requirement of Section 20(2)(a) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972, therefore, notice is bad.

5. He next submitted that during the course of cross examination, plaintiff-respondent has denied his signature on four pages and he was not aware about the fact written in the plaint as it was written in English. In support of his contention, he has placed reliance upon the provision of Order 6 Rule 14 and 15 of CPC, which provides that every page required signatures of party and pleader.

6. He further submitted that petitioner has fully complied the provision of Order 15 Rule 5 of CPC as well as Section 20(4) of Act, 1972 by depositing the admitted arrears of rent at the rate of Rs. 300/-per month, but benefit of Section 20(4) of Act, 1972 has not been given to him. In support of his contention he has placed reliance upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Asha Rani Gupta vs. Sri Vineet Kumar passed in Civil Appeal No. 4682 of 2022 arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 1319 of 2019.

7. He next submitted that once he has deposited the rent, he has entitled for benefit of Section 20(4) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972. In support of his contention, he has placed reliance upon the judgment of this Court in the case of University Book Depot through Jagannath vs. Amit Mishra passed in Civil Revision No. 10 of 2009 decided on 29.5.2020.

8. He further submitted that he had deposited the rent on month to month basis at the admitted rate of Rs.300/-through out the proceedings and same has neither been considered nor any finding has been recorded by the Court below. He further submitted that in the notice, rent has been claimed at the rate of Rs. 750/-whereas in the sale deed, it is mentioned as Rs.800/-and as per defendant-petitioner, rate is 300/-. Respondent-plaintiff could not proof the rent at the rate of Rs. 750/-, therefore, order is also bad on this ground.

9. He lastly submitted that vide notification dated 21.2.2021 area in question has been declared as slum area under the provisions of Section 23 of U.P. Slum Areas (Improvement and Clearance) Act, 1962, therefore, as per Section 23 of Act, 1962, no decree can be passed. He also submitted that once the KDA is acquired the land, plaintiff-respondent has losts its ownership from house in question.

10. Mr. Atul Dayal, learned Senior Advocate submitted that first of all legal notice dated 10.4.2014 was given for entire premises based upon the sale deed executed by Jasmeet Singh, which has never been disputed by the petitioner-defendant in its reply dated 1.5.2014, therefore,