B R TRADING COMPANY Vs. DHARAM RAJ SAHU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) DILIP Gupta, J Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 of JSCC Suit No. 2 of 1982 have filed this Revision under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887 for setting aside the order dated 11th September, 2007 passed by the learned Additional District Judge Court No. 3 Jaunpur by which the Suit was decreed and the defendant was directed to handover vacant possession of the property to the plaintiff.

(2.) THE aforesaid Suit had been filed by Dharam Raj Sahu for ejectment and arrears of rent/damages after serving the notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (hereinafter referred to as the ''act' ). It was stated in the plaint that the provisions of U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulations of Letting Rent & Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the ''rent Control Act') were not applicable to the house in dispute and a valid notice under Section 106 of the Act had been served upon the defendants. It was also alleged that defendant No. 1 firm through Pyarelal was the tenant and defendant Nos. 2 to 6 were the partners and had, therefore, been impleaded. THE said defendants had illegally and without the consent of the landlord had let out the shop to defendant Nos. 7 and 8 who are now carrying on their business.

(3.) SRI Umesh Vatsh learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff-respondent No. 1, however, submitted that the provisions of Section 114 of the Act were not applicable since the tenancy had been terminated by giving the notice under Section 106 of the Act and not under Section 111 (9) of the Act and in support of this contention he has placed reliance upon the judgment of this Court in Mohammad Nasir Vs. District Judge, Nainital & Ors. , 1999 (35) ALR 239 : 1999 (1) AWC 550. He further submitted that the tenancy had been validly terminated under Section 106 of the Act and that the Rent Control Act was not applicable since the building was not an old building and neither any issue had been framed in this regard. He also submitted that the defendants had not pointed out to the Court below the fact about death of defendant No. 3 Hori Lal and the judgment would not be a nullity in such a case.