JAMSHED Vs. RAJENDRA PRASAD TYAGI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is directed against the order dated 14.12.2010 passed by the Additional District Judge, Court No. 4, Saharanpur upholding the order dated 5.3.2010 passed by the Small Causes Court, Court No. 19, Saharanpur in SCC Suit No. 8 of 2008 whereby the suit filed by the plaintiff for arrears of rent and ejectment has been decreed. Brief facts of the case are as follows;

(2.) From perusal of the impugned orders passed by the Court below, it is evident that both the Courts below have recorded a categorical finding of fact upholding that the disputed premises does not come within the ambit of Rent Control Act. It was also held that the petitioner also committed default in the payment of rent. It is not disputed that the notice under section 106 of the Act was served upon the petitioner and the tenancy was terminated. The Court below has recorded a finding that the petitioner despite the service of notice did not pay the arrears of rent. The Court below after evaluating the evidence on record came to the conclusion that the disputed premises was, for the first time, assessed by the Nagar Maha Palika in the year 1993. After discussing the provision 2(2) of the Rent Control Act, 1972 the Court below rightly came to the conclusion that the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 is not applicable in the matter. Thus, when the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 itself is not applicable, the petitioner cannot get benefit under section 20(4) of the Act. The petitioner has not been able to pinpoint any illegality or infirmity in the orders passed by the Courts below. The Courts below have given cogent, convincing and satisfactory reasons. The findings recorded are neither perverse nor based on any extraneous or irrelevant material.

(3.) I do not finding any illegality or infirmity in the order impugned in the writ petition. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.