RAM KUMAR Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revisionist is the landlord of the premises in question, which was taken on a lease by the defendant postal authorities by a registered lease deed dated 31.10.1972 for a period of five years. After the expiry of the lease period, no fresh lease deed was executed between the parties. The landlord served a composite notice Under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act and Under Section 80, C.P.C. determining the tenancy. Inspite of receiving the notices, the opposite parties did not hand over vacant possession of the premises in question. Accordingly, the landlord filed a suit for ejectment of the opposite parties and for possession. The landlord further prayed that the rent and damages for use and occupation of the premises be also decreed against the defendants. The landlord alleged that the premises in question is a public building and is exempted from the operation of U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972.

(2.) The defendants resisted the suit and contended that the rent had been paid and that there was no default in the payment of rent. The defendants alleged that the tenancy could not be determined and the defendants could not be ejected from the premises in question.

(3.) The trial court, after determining the points in issue, dismissed the suit of the plaintiff/landlord. The trial court held that the composite notice issued Under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act and Under Section 80, C.P.C. was a valid notice determining the tenancy. The trial court, however, held that the defendants are entitled to claim the benefit of Section 39 of the U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 in view of the amendment made in the Act by U. P. Ordinance No. 28 of 1983. The trial court found that in view of the amendment vide Ordinance No. 28 of 1983, the building comes under the purview of U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 and therefore, the defendants could not be evicted. The trial court further found that even though the suit was filed in 1982, the Ordinance No. 28 of 1983 would be applicable in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Vineet Kumar v. Mangal Sain Wadhera, 1984 ARC 265. The trial court therefore, held that since the defendants had deposited the arrears of rent, cost and interest Under Section 20 (4) of the Act, they are entitled to the benefit of Section 39 of the Act and are not liable for ejectment.