ANAND SWARUP GARG Vs. DINESH CHANDRA GOEL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -This is a petition by a tenant, Anand Swarup Garg, Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are the landlords. It appears, landlords filed a suit for eviction of the petitioner from the premises, in question, on the ground of default, in the court of Judge, Small Causes. This suit was decreed and thereafter, the petitioner filed a revision. The revision was dismissed ; hence this writ petition.

(2.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.

(3.) THE second contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner was inducted as a tenant admittedly in the year 1973 when U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972 had come into operation. He has relied upon a case reported in 1983 (1) ARC 50. Relying upon this decision, it has been urged that the suit itself is not maintainable for ejectment as the petitioner was inducted as a tenant without any allotment order and in breach of the provisions of Act No. XIII of 1972. Learned counsel for the respondents-landlord has relied upon Sec. 14 of the Act No. XIII of 1972, which came into force some time in 1976. He submitted that even if there was no allotment order at the time of the filing of the suit, still by virtue of Sec. 14, it shall be deemed that the tenancy was regularized and he cannot be penalised for having entered into the premises without an allotment order. THE suit was filed in 1985 only. THEre is great force in this contention of the learned counsel for the respondents and I accept the same. THE decision relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner is distinguishable on fact. In that case, the suit was filed prior to the incorporation of the section 14 of the U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972. It is also relevant to point out that this point, sought to be raised now, had not been raised before the courts below. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also pointed out that although it was not taken as a plea in the written statement, but it could be raised being a point of law. I do not agree with him. Thus, this point cannot also be allowed to be raised now. No other point has been urged. 8. In the result, this petition fails and is, accordingly, dismissed. THE stay order granted by this Court on 18-2-1988 is hereby vacated. Petition dismissed.