KISHAN LAL Vs. IIND ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner-tenant, aggrieved by the order passed by the trial Court hereby the trial Court decreed suit filed by the landlord, approached the revisional Court under Section 25 of Provincial Small Cause Courts Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The revisional Court dismissed the revision filed by the petitioner-tenant, thus this writ petition.

(2.) The plaintiff-landlord filed a suit for arrears of rent and ejectment of the petitioner-tenant on the ground that the petitioner is defaulter in payment of rent and has not paid rent beyond 1st October, 1981. A decree for ejectment and arrears of rent was sought. It is stated that since the construction is the new construction, provisions of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 do not apply. The petitioner-tenant filed written statement and has taken defence that since the construction in question is a new construction, therefore, provisions of Act No. 13 of 1972 do not apply. The petitioner also stated that the petitioner was tenant of the premises in question since before its reconstruction which was reconstructed when the landlord filed an application under Section 21 (1) (b) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 before the prescribed authority in the year 1978 wherein allegations were that the building is in dilapidated condition and requires demolition and reconstruction. It was, therefore, prayed by the landlord-respondent in its application under Section 21(1) (b) that the building may be released in his favour so that the building may be demolished and reconstructed. During the pendency of the aforesaid case before the prescribed authority the parties entered into a compromise dated 6th November 1979. Pursuant to the said compromise it was agreed upon between the petitioner-tenant and respondent-landlord that the tenant will vacate the premises for demolition and reconstruction and after reconstruction the landlord agreed to let out the agreed space in the newly constructed building on a monthly rent of Rs. 80/- per month. In pursuance thereto the premises has come up after reconstruction and the tenant has entered into possession of the specified space but as stated above the petitioner has not paid any rent as agreed upon in the compromise dated 6th November, 1979 which was subject matter of the order of release passed by the prescribed authority.

(3.) The landlord also stated that since there was no allotment under Section 24 (2) of the Act in favour of the petitioner-tenant, therefore, the petitioner is not entitled for protection of the Act and is liable for ejectment. The petitioner, as stated above, has submitted that in view of provisions of Section 24 of the Act the allotment under Sub-section (2) of Section 24 will be required only in favour of such person where the landlord has not put in a tenant in possession of the premises under Sub-section (1) of Section 24 of the Act whereas in the present case the petitioner-tenant has enter into the premises under Sub-section (1) of Section 24 of the Act.