PURSHOTAM DASS Vs. VIDYAWATI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff filed a suit against the defendant for recovery of arrears of rent, and for ejectment from the premises in question. The plaintiff alleged that he is the landlord and that the defendant is the tenant in the premises in question and that the plaintiff gave a notice terminating the tenancy of the defendant on the ground that the arrears of rent had not been paid. It was also stated that the building was constructed in the year 1977 and therefore, the building was not ten years old and therefore 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 the allegations made by the plaintiff and contended that the building in question was constructed in the year 1972-73 and the provisions of U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 was applicable. The defendant further alleged that he was not a defaulter and that the landlord refused to accept the rent and, accordingly, the defendant deposited the rent under Section 30 of the Act.

(2.) The Judge Small Cause Court after determining the points in issue, decreed the suit, holding that the defendant was in arrears" of rent and that the notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act was a valid notice and had validly terminated the tenancy of the tenant. The Judge Small Cause Court further held that the building in question was constructed in the year 1977 and was occupied by the tenant in the year 1978 and, therefore, the provisions of U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 was not applicable. The trial court further held that the benefit of Section 39 of the Act was not available to the tenant.

(3.) Aggrieved by the decision of the Judge Small Cause Court, the petitioner has filed the present revision under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act.