BHAGWAS DAS DECD Vs. ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE AGRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner seeks to quash the decree passed by the trial court for recovery of arrears of rent, ejectment and damages and the order of the revisional court dismissing the revision against the said Judgment.

(2.) Briefly stated the facts are that respondent No. 3 is landlord of the shop in question of which the petitioner is tenant. He filed Suit No. 1268 of 1968 against the petitioner in the Court of Judge Small Causes for recovery of arrears of rent, ejectment and damages with the allegations that the shop in question was constructed in the year 1987 and was - not governed by the provisions of U. P. (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act. 1947. The petitioner had illegally sublet the accommodation to the defendant Nos. 2 to 4. His tenancy was terminated by a notice which was served upon him on 7.10.1976 but inspite of service of notice he did not vacate the shop. The petitioner filed written statement and alleged that he did not sublet the accommodation or committed default in payment of arrears of rent.

(3.) The shop in question was alleged to be governed by provisions of U. P. Act No. 3 of 1947. During the pendency of the suit, U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (in short the Act) came into force. The petitioner deposited the entire arrears of rent on the date of commencement of the Act in relation to the shop in question under Section 39 of the 'Act and claimed that the suit was not liable to be decreed for eviction. The trial court found that the provisions of U. P. Act No. 3 of 1947 were not applicable on the date the shop in question was let out to the petitioner. The petitioner had sublet the disputed accommodation to the defendant Nos. 2 and 3 and was liable to be evicted on the ground mentioned under Section 20 (2) (e) of the Act as he had sublet to defendant Nos. 2 and 3 in contravention to the provisions of Section 25 of the Act. On these findings, the suit was decreed on 15.10.1973. The petitioner preferred a revision and the revision has been dismissed on 2.9.1977. These orders have been challenged in the present writ petition.