CHAMPA LAL JAIN Vs. ADDL DISTRICT JUDGE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is the landlord and owner of the shop in question. The petitioner filed a suit alleging that the shop in question was reconstructed on 31.5.1973 and was let out to the defendant on 1.10.1973. It was alleged that the first assessment of a property in question was made on 1.10.1979. The petitioner gave a notice dated 31.12.1982 terminating the tenancy of the defendant on the ground that the arrears of rent had not been paid. It was also stated in the suit that since the building was not 10 years old, the provisions of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 was not applicable (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The defendant contested the suit and denied that the shop was reconstructed on 31.5.1973 and contended that it was an old construction which was let out to a previous tenant and after he had vacated the shop in question, the same was let out to the defendant. The defendant contended that U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 was applicable to the shop in question and that he could not be evicted from the shop in question on the ground of the termination of the tenancy and that he could only be evicted on the grounds mentioned in Section 20 of the Act. The defendant further contended that the notice issued under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act was invalid and that in any case he had deposited the entire arrears of rent, damages and interest on the first date of hearing and therefore, the benefit of Section 20 (iv) should be made available to him.

(2.) The trial court by judgment and order dated 10.2.1986 dismissed the suit of the petitioner. The trial court held that the defendant was not in arrears of rent. The trial court further found that the shop was constructed in the year 1973 and during the pendency of the proceedings, the period of 10 years were completed and therefore, the Act became applicable. The trial court relying upon the decision of Vineet Kumar v. Mangal Sain. AIR 1985 SC 817, dismissed the suit.

(3.) Aggrieved by the decision of the trial court, the petitioner filed a revision under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, which was also dismissed by judgment dated 22.1.1987. The revisional court found that the shop was reconstructed in 1973 and the assessment was also made in the year 1973. The revisional court also held that since the Act became applicable during the pendency of the proceedings, the defendants could not be evicted except on the grounds mentioned in Section 20 of the Act. The petitioner has now filed the present writ petition.