SUBHAS SAXENA Vs. ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a writ petition for issuing a writ of certiorari to quash the judgment and decree dated 30.8.2002 passed by the XIIth Additional District Judge, Lucknow, as contained in Annexure No. 7. Opposite party No. 3 Smt. S.K. Hasteer filed a suit for arrears of rent and ejectment against the petitioner before the Judge Small Causes, Lucknow in the year 1988. The case of the opposite party No. 3 plaintiff in the suit was that the provision of U.P. Urban Buildings Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') do not apply because the disputed premises was constructed in the year 1979 -80 and it's first assessment was made in the year 1986. Plaintiff/opposite party also demanded the rent for the period 8.8.1985 to 7.3.1987 by alleging that Rs. 4,200/ - has been realized with great difficulty and remaining amount of Rs. 8,000/ - was still due up to 7.3.1987. Suit was filed after determining the tenancy of the petitioner by a notice under section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act.

(2.) THE Trial Court after framing issues recorded the findings that the provisions of the Act do not apply to the premises in suit and notice under section 106 of the Transfer of the Property Act was invalid. The learned Judge Small Causes did not record any finding on the arrears or default in payment of rent because of the reason that it was not required in view of the finding that the provision of the Act do not apply to the premises in suit.

(3.) THE plaintiff/opposite party No. 3 filed a. Revision to challenge the finding on issue No. 3 by which the notice under section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act was held invalid. The learned Revisional Court allowed the revision by the impugned judgment Annexure No. 7. After relying on the various decisions of the High Court and the decision referred to in the judgment of Judge Small Causes Court, it was held that notice under section 106 of the Transfer of the Property Act is legal and valid notice. After recording this finding the Revisional Court decreed the suit for recovery of rent and ejectment. It is against this order passed in Revision, the defendant/tenant has filed this writ petition.