JITENDRA SINGH Vs. KAILASH CHANDRA VAISH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision application under section 115, C. P. C, raises a dispute between landlord and tenant. The opposite party is the landlord of the accommodation in dispute of which the revisionist is the tenant. The opposite party filed a suit for the ejectment of the appli cant on the ground of non-payment of arrears of rent within the period allowed by law. The arrears were claimed by the plaintiff on the allegations that the rent of the accommodation was Rs. 60/- per month and the rent was due from the tenant from 1st Feb. '72 to 7th Feb.,'73 which inspite of notice of demand he did not pay. Hence, according to the plaintiff, he was liable to ejectment. The tenant contested the suit on the ground that the rent of the accommodation was Rs. 40/-and that after the enforcement of U. P. Act XIII of 1972 he was entitled to the benefits of section 20 (4) of the said Act. The trial court recorded a finding that the rent of the accommodation was Rs. 40/- per month plus Rs. 10/- as electricity charges. The court, however, held that the applicant was entitled to the benefit of Sec. 20 Sub-section (4) of U. P. Act XIII of 1972. In this way suit for arrears of rent was decreed but the suit for ejectment was dismissed. The opposite party aggrieved by the decree passed by the trial court filed a revision application under section 25 S. C. C. Act in the Court of the District Judge, Lucknow. The Additional District Judge, Lucknow by his judgment and decree dated 19-1-78 held that the rent of the accomodation was Rs. 60/- per month and that the applicant was not entitled to the benefits of Section 20 (4) of U. P. Act XIII of 1972. After recording this finding the revision application was allowed and the claim of the opposite party was decreed in toto. Aggrieved by the decree passed by the Additional District Judge the applicant-tenant has come up in revision before this court. During the course of arguments Mr. B. L. Shukla learned counsel for the opposite party conceded that the finding recorded by the Additional District Judge that the rent of the accommodation was Rs. 60/- per month is incorrect. He conceded that the rent of the accommodation is Rs. 40/- per month plus Rs. 10/- as electricity charges. After this statement had been made it was not necessary to scrutinise the findings recorded by the Additional District Judge in regard to the rate of rent. Mr. B. L. Shukla, however, contended that even if the rent of the accommodation is Rs. 50/- per month the applicant was in arrears of rent for more than three months as provided by U. P. Act III of 1947 and a decree for ejectment shall be passed against the applicant. It is the admitted case of the parties that the accommodation in dispute is within the cantonment area. The suit was filed on 22nd Feb., '73 and on that date, in the cantonment area, U. P. Act III of 1947 was in force. In exercise of powers conferred by section 3 to the Cantonments (Extension of Rent Control Laws) Act, 1957 (4 of 1957) and in supersession of the notifica tion of the Government of India, Ministry of Defence, No. S. R. O. 8, dated the 3rd April, 1972, the Central Government extended to all the Cantonments in the State of Uttar Pradesh the provisions of U. P. Act XIII of 1972. THIS notification is dated 29th September, 1973. From what has been stated above it is clear that when the suit against the applicant was filed it was filed under U. P. Act III of 1947. Mr. L. P. Shukla applicant's counsel contended that the finding to recorded by the Additional District Judge that the provisions of section 20 (4) of U.P. Act No. IV of 1972 are available to the applicant and the finding to the contrary recorded by the Additional District Judge is incorrect. In order to appreciate the point raised by Mr. L. P. Shukla in regard to the applicability of sub-section 4 of Sec. 20 of Act XIII of 1972 reference has to be made to section 43(1)(s) of the said Act. It provides that any suit for the evic tion of a tenant instituted on any ground mentioned in section 3(1) of U.P. Act III of 1974 or any proceeding arising out of such suit pending immediately before the commencement of U. P. Act XIII of 1972 may be continued and concluded in accordance with U. P. Act III of 1947. The words "be deemed to continue in force" were added to Sub- clause (s) of U. P. Act XIII of 1972 by U. P. Act XXVIII of 1976. The aforesaid amendment has been made with retrospective effect and it shall be deemed to be in force from 15-7-72 when U. P. Act XIII of 1972 came into force. In this background it is clear that ' the present suit would be governed by U. P. Act III of 1947. In order to attract the application of Sub-section (4) of section 20 it has to be established that the suit itself was filed after the enforcement of U. P. Act XIII of 1972. In the instant case the suit was filed at a time when U. P. Act XIII of 1972 was not in force. and therefore, it is not possible to agree with the conten tion of Mr. L. P. Shukla that the instant suit is one to which the provisions of U. P. Act XIII of 1972 would apply. In Ram Saran Das v. Smt. Sttanti Devi(A. I. R. 1977 Alld. 175.) Hon'ble O. P. Trivedi, J. has held as follows: "To my mind, the appellant is not entitled to the benefit of Section 20 (4) of U. P. Act XIII of 1972 because the benefit of sub-section (4) of section 20 of the said Act is available only in a suit for eviction filed under clause (a) of section 20 (2) of U. P. Act XIII of 1972. The suit out of which the present appeal arises was not filed under section 20 of U. P. Act XIII of 1972, but it was filed under the old Act viz., U. P. Act III of 1947, the benefit of section 20 (4) of U. P. Act XI11 of 1972 is not available to the tenant against whom a suit was filed under the old Act." I find myself in agreement with the observations made above, moreover, the deeming provisions added to sub-clause (s) of section 43 of the Act make it abundantly clear that the U. P. Act III of 1947 would apply. Mr. L. P. Shukla learned counsel for the applicant, however, relies upon R. K. Berry v. State of U. P.( 1974 A. L. J. 354). In view of the deeming provision contained in Sub-section (s) of Section 43 (1) of the Act it is not possible to accede to the line of reasoning pressed by Mr. Shukla. As a result of the finding recorded above, the revision application is allowed in part. The finding recorded by the Additional District Judge that the rent of the accommodation is Rs. 60/- is set aside. The figure arrived at by the consent of the parties is Rs. 50/-. Since the applicant has not paid the arrears of rent for the period claimed at the rate of Rs. 50/- in spite of notice of demand the decree for ejectment passed by the appellate court is affirmed. In the circumstances of the case the parties shall bear their own costs.