ABDUL SAMAD Vs. SMALL CAUSES COURT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Arvind Srivastava, learned Counsel for the petitioners and Sri S.C. Kushwaha, has appeared for respondent No. 3. Petitioners are the owners and landlords of the premises in dispute numbered as 106/1 renumbered as 258 which contains a shop. Petitioners instituted a suit for the eviction of the respondent No. 3 from the shop forming part of premises No. 106/1 alleging that it has been reconstructed and as such the provisions of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 are not applicable. The respondent No. 3 has defaulted in payment of rent for the period of 25.8.1994 to 24.2.1996. His tenancy has been determined vide notice dated 2.3.1995.

(2.) The suit was contested on the allegation that the shop is an old shop which is covered by the provisions of the Act.

(3.) The Court of first instance by the impugned judgment and order dated 25.5.2004 dismissed the suit holding that the Act is applicable and since tenancy has not been determined for default in payment of rent under the Act, petitioners are not entitle to any relief. The Court declined to record any finding on the point of defaults no relief for arrears of rent was claimed.