AJIT KUMAR TANDAN Vs. DISTRICT JUDGE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition has been filed for quashing the judgment dated 22 -2 -1986 passed by the District Judge, Faizabad in Civil Revision No. 12 of 1985 (Annexure 4) and also for quashing the order dated 30 -11 -1984 passed by the Judge, Small Causes Court, Faizabad in the Suit No. 16 of 1984 (Annexure 3). The plaintiff respondent had filed a suit for arrears of rent and ejectment against the present petitioner on the ground that the petitioner was the tenant of the shop in dispute on Rs. 80 per month. The said shop was constructed in December, 1977 and therefore the provisions of U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter called, the Act) were not applicable. The tenancy of the petitioner was terminated by means of the notice dated 7 -1 -1984 which was served on the tenant on 14 -1 -1984.

(2.) THE tenant contested the suit, inter alia on the ground that the shop in question was an old one and therefore the provisions of the Act were applicable and since none of the provisions contained in Section 20 of the said. Act was attracted the landlord had no right to file suit for ejectment.

(3.) THE only point argued on behalf of the parties is as to whether the provisions of the Act are applicable in this case or not. According to the landlord the shop in question was constructed in 1977; whereas the tenant -petitioner alleged that the shop was an old one. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that earlier there was a passage covered by a roof and the landlord has merely fixed a door and raised walls and has converted the same into the shop and as such the said alteration would not be enough to treat the shop in question as new construction. The facts which have been accepted by the courts below are that only the roof of the shop in question is old and all other constructions including walls were new from the foundation. The level of the floor was also altered. The landlord has also filed permission from the Municipal Board for construction of the shop. The site plan which was sanctioned by the Municipal Board also indicated that the said sanction was granted in October, 1977. The landlord has also examined the mason who has constructed the shop in question. The Court below has accepted these facts and this court sitting under extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India would not enter into the controversy about the facts.