April, 1996; (b) that it was the case of the respondents/defendants that the rent receipt filed by the appellant/plaintiff was not genuine and inspite thereof, the appellant/plaintiff had failed to examine the landlord, to indeed show that any premises in non-conforming/residential area was in the tenancy of the appellant/plaintiff; (c) that it was the case of the appellant/plaintiff that he was running the factory since 1995 but the appellant/plaintiff failed to file any documents whatsoever to show the establishment or running of a factory; (d) that the Income Tax Returns of the appellant/plaintiff also did not prove establishment or running of a factory prior to 19th April, 1996; (e) that the appellant/plaintiff, by filing two successive appeals against the decision of the appropriate authority of rejection of his application, had already availed of the procedure prescribed under the scheme for dealing with the application and the appellant/plaintiff in the suit also had failed to claim the relief of declaration; (f) that it was the contention of the counsel for the appellant/plaintiff himself that the scheme under which he had applied had closed long back; if that was so, then the appeal was infructuous.
