LAL MOHAMMAD Vs. 2ND ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE ALLAHABAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) FEELING aggrieved by the decree of ejectment and recovery of arrears of rent and damages for use and occupation In respect of the accommodation in dispute, which was under the tenancy of the petitioner, passed by the Judge Small Cause Court, which was affirmed in revision filed under section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, he has approached this Court for redress and has sought for the quashing of the impugned orders dated 14-1-1988, passed by the trial court as well as the order dated 1-11-1989 passed by the revisional Court where under the revision filed by the petitioner tenant was dismissed.

(2.) THE respondent landlord had filed a suit giving rise to the present writ petition on the assertions that the tenant was a defaulter within the meaning of Section 20 (2) of the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting Rent and Eviction) Act. 1972 (herein after referred to as 'Act') and inspite of the service of the notice dated 20-1-1979, terminating the tenancy and requiring the defendant to pay the arrears of rent, which was alleged to be due since 1-12-1976, which notice was duly served on 29-1-1979, the defendant has neither tendered or paid the rent nor had vacated the premises in dispute. THE aforesaid suit was contested by the defendant asserting that no rent was due as claimed as the same was being paid under Section 30 of U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972. vide Misc. Case No. 347 of 1978, which was still pending and that neither notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act was served on the defendant nor he had ever refused to accept it and It was further asserted that combined notice under Section 20 (2) (a) and 106 of the Transfer of Property Act was illegal, void and bad in law.

(3.) AFTER remand, the trial court proceeded to decide the issues No. 2, 3 and 4, which related to the questions regarding the validity of the notice and whether the defendant tenant could be deemed to be a defaulter as contemplated under Section 20 of the Act and whether in the circumstances of the case, the plaintiff was entitled to a decree of eviction against the defendant as claimed.