TELU RAM Vs. FIRST ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present petition arises out of the proceedings of a suit for ejectment and recovery of rent and is directed against the judgment and order dated 5.9.1998 whereby the trial Court decreed the suit filed by the contesting respondent No. 3 - -landlord and the order dated 14.11.2000 whereby revision filed by the petitioner was dismissed by the revisional Court. It appears that the suit was filed by respondent No. 3 - -landlord for ejectment and recovery of rent on the ground of default. It was pleaded that the provisions of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting; Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972) for short the Act, were not applicable to the building in question, as it was a new construction. On behalf of the petitioner, written statement was filed denying the facts pleaded by the landlord. It was asserted that he was not a defaulter and the provisions of the Act were fully applicable over the building in question, as the same was an old construction. Parties in support of their cases produced evidence before the trial Court, oral and documentary. The trial Court after going through the material on the record, recorded findings on the material on record, in favour of the landlord -respondent and decreed the suit by judgment and decree dated 5.9.1998. Challenging the validity of the said decree, a revision was filed before the revisional Court under Section 25 of Provincial Small Cause Courts Act. The revisional Court also affirmed the findings recorded by the trial Court and dismissed the revision by its judgment and order dated 14.11.2000. Hence, the present petition.

(2.) LEARNED counsel appearing for the petitioner vehemently urged that the judgment and order passed by the Courts below were wholly illegal. It was submitted that from the material on the record it was proved that petitioner did not commit default in payment of rent. It was also urged that the provisions of the Act were fully applicable as the plaintiff -respondent failed to prove that the building in question was a new construction. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the contesting respondent supported the validity of the judgment and decrees passed by the Courts below. It was urged that the present petition is concluded by concurrent findings of fact recorded by the Courts below and the writ petition is, therefore, liable to be dismissed.

(3.) THE Courts below have recorded concurrent findings on the question of default against the petitioner. The said findings are based on material on the record and cannot be said to be perverse. The Court below has also held that the provisions of the Act were not applicable to the building in question relying upon the material on the record, therefore, the said finding is also based on the documentary as well as oral evidence. I do not find any perversity in the findings recorded by the Court below. No case for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is made out.