RAJENDRA Vs. DISTRICT JUDGE AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is tenant's writ petition directed against order dated 1.5.1987 passed by District Judge, Bijnore in S.C.C. Revision No. 20 of 1986. Through the impugned order matter has been remanded to the Trial Court. Landlord -respondent No. 3 filed suit for eviction against tenant -petitioner on the ground that U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 was not applicable to the building in dispute and tenant was liable to ejectment as his tenancy had been terminated through notice under section 106, T.P. Act. As far as rate of rent is concerned landlord asserted that it was Rs. 80/ - per month. However, tenant stated that it was only Rs. 15/ - per month. The suit was registered as S.C.C. suit No. 13 of 1984 on the file of J.S.C.C., Nagina. The suit was decided on 14.10.1986. J.S.C.C./Trial Court held against the landlord that rate of rent was Rs. 15/ - per month and not Rs. 80/ - per month. However, as far as the applicability of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 (U.P. Rent Regulation Act) is concerned, the Trial Court decided the said question against the tenant and held that the said Act was not applicable to the building in dispute. Trial Court dismissed the suit on the ground that notice of termination of tenancy was served on 22.2.1984 and the suit was filed on 22.3.1984 hence thirty days time had not expired. It has been asserted by the landlord that notice was served on 21.2.1984. Accordingly, Trial Court by judgment and decree dated 14.10.1986 dismissed the suit. Against the said judgment and decree landlord filed S.C.C. Revision No. 20 of 1986. Revisional Court held that in view of the fact that February is of 28 days or 29 days, if February intervenes requisite period of notice might be considered differently. The Revisional Court thereafter remanded the matter to the Trial Court to decide the said question only. In my opinion it was a pure question of law hence there was no necessity to remand. Revisional Court ought to have decided that question by itself.

(2.) ACCORDINGLY , writ petition is allowed. Judgment and order passed by the Revisional Court is set aside and revision (S.C.C. revision No. 20 of 1986) is remanded to the District Judge, Bijnore to decide the same again. It is needless to say that District Judge may either himself decide the revision or send the same to some other Court of A.D.J. It is clarified that question of rate of rent and applicability of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 shall not be reopened. Revisional Court shall only decide the question whether suit was filed after termination of tenancy or prior to that. Both the parties are directed to appear before the District Judge concerned alongwith certified copy of this judgment on 11.7.2005. Every effort shall be made by the Revisional Court to decide the revision within four months from the said date i.e. 11.7.2005.