AZIZ AHMAD Vs. ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE BAREILLY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present petition has been filed by the defendant-tenant against the judgment and decree passed against him for his ejectment by the Small Causes Court and the Revisional Authority.

(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that suit no. 215 of 1976 was instituted by the respondent no. 3 against the petitioner on 30th March, 1976. In para 4 of the plaint it is mentioned that the building in dispute was constructed in the year 1968. THE U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 was not applicable to it. THE suit was filed after terminating the tenancy of the petitioner by giving notice under section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. A written? statement was filed which is Annexure '1' to the writ petition- It was contended that the disputed shop was 15 years old and the provisions of Rent Control Laws applied to the same. Some deposits of rent made in Court were also pleaded. In para 3 it was pleaded that the defendant had deposited rent up to 21st December, 1977 and further redeposited the dues along with the expenses and costs of the suit from 22-4-1975 to 21-3-1978. Thus, the rent was deposited twice for some period. An issue was framed by the Court of Small Causes about the applicability of the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 and about the benefit of Section 39 of that Act being available to the tenant. That Act is hereinafter referred to as the Act.

(3.) COMING to the next point whether the petitioner would be entitled to the benefit of section 39 of the Act, it may be noted that the section applied to cases which were pending on the date of commencement of the Act. Clause (1) of section 39 of the Act reads as under :-