ATEEQ AHMAD Vs. VTH A D J

JUDGEMENT

(1.) S. U. Khan, J. This is landlord's writ petition. Landlord filed suit for eviction against tenant-respondent which was registered as S. C. C. Suit No. 26/84 in the file of J. S. C. C. /civil Judge (Junior Division), Rampur. J. S. C. C. dismissed the suit for eviction through judgment and decree dated 21-8-1996 only on the ground that under last issue i. e. , Issue No. 10 it was held that defendant was entitled to the benefit of Section 114, T. P. Act. Against the said judgment and decree landlord filed S. C. C. Revision No. 106/96. District Judge, Rampur through judgment and order dated 3-12-1997 dismissed the revision hence this writ petition.

(2.) LEARNED Counsel for petitioner has cited Kumaun Plaza v. A. Sharma, 2003 (52) ALR 664, (Uttaranchal High Court) in which it has been held that unless there is specific agreement between the landlord and tenant to the effect that for non-payment of rent, tenancy would stand forfeited and tenant would be liable to ejectment, provision of Section 114 of Transfer of Property Act are not applicable. I have also taken similar view in Vinod Kumar Rastogi v. VII A. D. J. & Ors. , 2003 (2) JCLR 592 (All) : 2003 (52) ALR 787.