OM PRAKASH GUPTA GOPAL KRISHNA ANDLEY SATYA NARAYAN SURESH CHAND Vs. DIG VIJENDRAPAL GUPTA:VTH ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE KANPUR:IIIRD ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE JALAUN:GULAM GHISTI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The first two appeals by special leave and the third by certificate and the special leave petition raise a common question, of law and, therefore, we propose to dispose of them by a common judgment.

(2.) The pattern of facts in all these cases is similar. We, therefore, set out the facts of Civil Appeal No. 1314 of 1378 to bring out the point for, consideration in these matters.

(3.) The appellant Om Prakash Gupta is a tenant of a shop on a monthly rent of Rs. 150/- The respondent-landlord filed a suit for the eviction of the tenant on the ground that the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (Act 13 of 1972 and hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') did not apply to the shop and the tenant was liable to eviction. The Judge, Small Cause Court, Mainpuri decreed the suit on the finding inter alia that the construction of the shop in suit was completed in the year 1967 and that ten years having not elapsed since then, the provisions of the Act did not apply to the case The defendant went up In revision under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act against the judgment and decree of the trial Court. but the same was substantially dismissed. The defendant thereupon filed a revision under S. 115 of the Civil Procedure Code in the High court which came up for hearing before a learned single Judge who remitted the following issue to the trial Court: