SHAFIULLAH Vs. SPECIAL JUDGE E G ACT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PRAKASH Krishna, J. This is an unfortunate litigation.

(2.) THIS matter has come up before this Court third time in the present writ petition and travelled to the Apex Court twice.

(3.) IT was further pleaded that the building in question is a newly constructed building and was constructed about eight years before and as such the provisions of U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 are not applicable. The said shop originally belongs to Mohd. Isha (Plaintiff No. 3), the father of the plaintiffs No. 1 and 2 who by means of sale deed dated 20. 7. 1976 sold it to his sons plaintiffs No. 1 and 2 and thus they have become its owner and landlord. IT was let out to the defendant tenant with effect from 1. 10. 1973 with the clear stipulation that as an when the shop is needed by the landlord, the tenant would vacate it after the service of a month's notice. The tenancy was determined under Section 106 of the Transfer of Prop erty Act by serving a notice dated 2. 1. 1978 under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, which was served on 4. 1. 1978. The tenancy has been determined after 30 days of the receipt of the notice. The suit was contested mainly on the ground that there is no arrears of rent and that the shop in question is a old construction and was constructed about 20 years before and as such the provi sions of U. P Act No. 13 of 1972 are applicable. The relation of landlord and tenant between the parties and the rate of rent were, not disputed.