SOHAN LAL Vs. ADDL DISTRICT JUDGE DEHRADUN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present petition has been filed by the tenant against a decree for ejectment passed against him by the Judge Small Cause Court, Dehradun. Against that decree a revision was filed before the District Judge which was also dismissed by the Addl. District Judge, Dehradun. THE brief facts of the case are that the suit was filed against the defendant petitioner alleging that originally he was given possession over the disputed accommodation as a licensee in the year 1958. Subsequently the defendant's licence was revoked but he failed to deliver possession of the property and asserted that he was a tenant. THE plaintiff thereupon accepted the assertion of the defendant that he was a tenant at the rate of Rs. 10/- per month and issued a notice on 1-9-1969 accepting him as a tenant from very inception as claimed by the defendant and demanding rent for the entire period. THE rent for about three years was offered but was refused. THEreupon a suit was filed claiming rent for three years and ejectment.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has raised two questions before me. The first was that the petitioner was not defaulter and, therefore, he was not liable to ejectment from the disputed accommodation. The second question was that his eviction was protected by provisions of section 3 of the U. P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 1947. Considering the first question of default, the finding of fact recorded by both the courts below is that the defendant was liable to pay rent at the rate of Rs. 10/- per month and he defaulted in the payment of the same. The case of the petitioner that he used to pay rent as and when due and further that he was not given receipt but he had paid rent, was disbelieved. The second question raised by the learned counsel is that the lower revisional court acted illegally in holding that the petitioner was not entitled to protection of section 43 (2) (s) of the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act. In my opinion the argument of the learned counsel has no force. The U. P. Cantonment (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1952 stood repealed on 3rd April, 1972 and from that date the U. P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 1947 became applicable to the premises by virtue of notification under section 3 of the Central Act No. 47 of 1957 dated 3rd April, 1972. The U. P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act stood repealed by section 43 of the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 with effect from 15th July, 1972. The U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 was not made applicable to the Cantonments under section 1. Subsequently by another Notification No. S. R. O. 259 dated 29-9-1973 published in the Gazette of India Part II on 29-9-1973 the provisions of U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 were extended to Cantonments. Admittedly the disputed property is situate in Cantonment at Dehradun, therefore, between the period of 15th July, 1972 and 29th September, 1973 the U. P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act 1947 or U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 did not apply to the premises. The Act became applicable to the premises on 29th September, 1973 and on that date the defendant became entitled to claim benefit of section 39 read with section 40 of the latter Act. There is nothing on the record to suggest nor it is alleged that the defendant did take any step to deposit the cost, rent and interest as required by the aforesaid section and thus the ejectment could not be decreed against him. The instant case was thus a case which was continued as a case not covered by either U. P. Act No. Ill of 1947 or U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972. A decree, therefore, could have been passed against the petitioner even if there was no default. It is not denied that the tenancy was terminated before filing of the suit.