(1.) THE Petitioner who is a Defendant in a suit for rent and ejectment filed by the opposite parties Nos. 3 to 5 has, through this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution prayed that the orders dated 30th May, 1983 (Annexure 5) and 28th February, 1984 (Annexure 7) passed by the trial court and the revisional court opposite parties Nos. 2 and 1 respectively, whereby they dismissed the Petitioner's application for rejecting the plaint under Order VII, Rule 11 Code of Civil Procedure be quashed. The suit in question had originally been filed by opposite party No. 3 against the Petitioner on the ground that she was his tenant in a portion of the building on a monthly rent of Rs. 385/ - and her tenancy had been terminated by a notice since the building in question was not governed by the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1973, but she had not complied with the notice by making payment of the rent or mesne profits or vacating the premises, and hence relief for eviction and arrears of rent and damages was prayed.
(2.) THE contest on behalf of the Petitioner was on the ground that she was not a tenant of the premises and that her father -in -law Sri Nasar Mahmud had been residing in the disputed premises as a tenant.
(3.) THE opposite parties Nos. 3 to 5 in their counter -affidavit asserted that the Petitioner was the tenant of the premises and further contended that the suit had been filed when the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 was not applicable to the premises and though during the pendency of the suit the aforesaid Act became applicable yet the Petitioner not having complied with the provisions of Section 39 of the said Act was not entitled to any relief against eviction and the cause of action as disclosed in the original plaint still subsisted. It was also contended that the suit having been filed before the said Act became applicable to the premises it was not necessary to base the claim on arrears of rent of four months or more and their remaining unpaid within one month of the notice of demand.