TRILOK CHAND AND OTHERS Vs. RIYAZ FATMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record. This petition by the tenant is directed against concurrent orders dated 27.10.2005 and 29.8.2009 by which both the Courts below have decreed the eviction suit filed by the respondent-landlord on the ground of arrears of rent etc. It appears that the respondent-landlady instituted a SCC Suit No. 14 of 1996 against the petitioner-tenant for recovery of arrears of rent and damages for eviction from the shop in dispute mainly on the ground that the provisions of U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972 (here-in-after referred to as the Act) do not apply and that the tenant has sublet the disputed shop to one Raghubir Singh and Raju and has not paid the rent from 1.1.1991 together with house rent etc. and despite a notice determining the tenancy by registered post, neither the shop was vacated nor arrears of rent were paid.

(2.) The petitioner-tenant contested the suit inter-alia on the ground that the Act applies to the disputed shop and since the husband of the landlady refused to accept the rent, he had deposited it in proceedings under section 30 of the Act and there was no default and the rent has been paid. Subletting was also denied.

(3.) After the parties led their evidence, the Judge, Small Causes Court vide order dated 22.7.1997 held that the Act was applicable and the tenant was not a defaulter but it went on to hold that the tenant was an unauthorized occupant without an order of allotment and therefore partly decreed the suit for recovery of rent but refused eviction. In the resultant revision, the entire suit itself was dismissed vide order dated 16.9.1998. The landlady challenged the said two decision in writ petition No. 40881 of 1998 and a learned Single Judge of this Court allowed the writ petition vide order dated 25.2.2005 holding that both the Courts below have erred in not considering the applicability of the Act in accordance to section 2(2) of the Act and accordingly, it remanded the matter to be decided afresh to the Trial Court in accordance with observation made therein.