JOGENDRA MITTAL Vs. ADDL DISTRICT JUDGE, HARDWAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY the present writ petition the petitioner has challenged the order passed by the Additional District Judge, Hardwar dated 22.8.2003. The revisional Court by the impugned order has allowed the revision and has directed the Judge, Small Cause Court to re -hear the matter.

(2.) BRIEF facts giving rise to the present writ petition are that the respondent No.3 has filed a suit in the Court of Judge, Small Cause Court, stating therein that the petitioner is a tenant at the rate of Rs. 225 per month. The landlord respondent has stated that the construction work was completed in the year 1981 -82 but the property was given to the tenant in the year 1982 and as such provisions of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 are not applicable to the property in dispute. The landlord respondent alleged to have sent notice on 21.3.1988 demanding arrears of rent and also terminated the tenancy under Section 106 of T.P. Act, which was duly served upon the petitioner on 22.3.1988. It was alleged by the landlord that inspite of the fact that period of notice has expired; the petitioner has failed to vacate the premises hence the suit was filed against him.

(3.) THE suit was contested by the petitioner stating therein that the provisions of U. P. Act 13 of.1972 are applicable to the premises in dispute as it was constructed in the year 1977 and the petitioner occupied the premises in the year 1978 at the rate of Rs. 100/ - per month. It was also stated by the petitioner that immediately after purchase of the accommodation in the year 1976 it was constructed in the year 1977 and even on 6.4.1978 the landlord was given water connection in the premises in dispute.