ABDUL RAHMAN Vs. SPECIAL JUDGE E C ACT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is landlords' writ petition arising out of suit for eviction initiated by landlords against tenant respondent No. 3 Azeem Bux in the form of SCC Suit No. 1 of 1975 on the file of JSCC / Munsif III, Jalaun. In the plaint of the suit, it was asserted that as building in dispute was constructed in the year 1969, hence U.P Act No. 13 of 1972 was not applicable thereupon. The said plea was found proved by the trial court hence suit was decreed on 31.3.1977. Revision filed against the said judgment and decree was also dismissed by the District Judge, Jalaun. The said judgments were challenged before this Court through writ petition No. 5408 of 1979. The paid writ petition was decided on 2.7.1980. The Supreme Court in Ratan Lal Singhal v. Smt. Murti Devi AIR1980 SC 635 , (1980)4 SCC258 decided on 21.8.1979 had held that U.P Act No. 13 of 1972 would apply to every building, which was constructed before the enforcement of the said Act i.e. July 1972. On the basis of the said authority of Supreme Court, the earlier writ petition filed by the tenant (writ petition No. 5408 of 1979) was allowed on 2.7.1980 and matter was remanded to the trial court. The occasion to direct the remand arose due to the fact that the trial court had not recorded a clear finding regarding "the exact point of time when the building might have been said to be constructed within the meaning of Section 2(2) of the Act." Thereafter it was observed as follows: If it is found that the building was constructed prior to the coining into force of the aforesaid Act, it is obvious that the petitioner would be protected by the provisions of the said Act.

(2.) After remand the trial court held that even though building was constructed in the year 1969, however it was assessed for the first time for the purposes of house tax on 1.4.1970 hence that would be the date of first hearing. In respect of default trial court held that even before the notice dated 27.9.1974 tenant had sent the rent through money order to the landlord which had been refused hence he had deposited the same under Section 30 of the Act. Trial court further held that even after receiving the notice rent was again sent through money order which was again refused by the landlord and the same was also deposited under Section 30 of the Act hence tenant was not defaulter. The suit was therefore dismissed on 27.3.1982. Against the said judgment and decree plaintiff petitioner filed SCC Revision No. 33 of 1982. Special Judge (E.C Act) / ADJ, Jalaun through judgment and order dated 4.8.1987, dismissed the revision hence this writ petition.

(3.) The revisional court in Para 7 of its judgment clearly held that "sole point argued on behalf of revisionist is that U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 is not applicable to the disputed shop". Question of default was not challenged before the revisional court hence it is not necessary to decide the same in this writ petition. Even otherwise I do not find any fault in the findings of the trial court in respect of default. Trial court rightly held that deposit of rent under Section 30 of the Act by the tenant was valid hence he was not defaulter.