R.H. Zaidi, J. - (1.) BY means of this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India petitioner challenges the validity of the judgment and decree dated 24.11.1999 whereby the suit filed by the contesting respondent was decreed and the order dated 27.1.2000 whereby the revision filed by the petitioner against the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court, was dismissed. It appears that the contesting respondent filed a suit for ejectment from the building in question (shop) on the ground that the construction was a new one and to it the provisions of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act 1972 (U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972), for short the Act, were not applicable. The said suit was contested by the petitioner denying the facts stated in the plaint and asserting that the building was an old construction and that he was not liable to ejectment from the shop in dispute. The trial Court initially dismissed the suit by the judgment and decree dated 21.9.1998. The validity of the said decree was challenged by the plaintiff respondent in revision filed by him. It was on 24.8.1999 that the revision filed by the plaintiff was allowed and the matter was remanded to trial court for decision afresh. On remand, the trial Court after hearing the parties decreed the suit by judgment and decree dated 24.11.1999. Validity of the said decree was challenged by the petitioner in the revision filed by him. The revisional Court affirmed the findings recorded by the trial Court and dismissed the revision by the judgment and order dated 21.7.2000. Hence, the present petition.
(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner vehemently urged that the petitioner deposited the entire rent in the proceedings under Order XV Rule 5, C.P.C., therefore, he was not liable to ejectment from the building in question. The Courts below have acted illegally in decreeing the suit and dismissing the revision filed by the petitioner. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner.
(3.) THE Courts below have recorded concurrent findings of fact that the building in question was a new construction and the provisions of the Act had no application to the building on the date the suit was filed. Even after the building in question came under the operation of the Act during the pendency of the suit, the tenancy of the petitioner is not to be protected in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in Ramesh Chandra v. Ill Additional District Judge and others : 1992 (19) ALR 209. In paragraph 13 of the said decision it was ruled as under by Hon'ble Supreme Court: - - Yet another contention urged by the learned counsel for the tenant on the strength of Vineet Kumar v. Mangal Sain Wadhera : 1984 (10) ALR 115 is that inasmuch as the statutory period of ten years expired during the pendency of the suit, the Act became applicable and the suit must be disposed of only in accordance with the provisions of the Act and in particular sub -section (2) of Section 20. This decision has, however, been explained in a subsequent decision in Nand Kishore Marwah and others v. Samundri Devi : 1987 (13) ALR 670, wherein it has been held that the law applicable on the date of institution of the suit alone governs the suit and the mere fact that the statutory period of ten years expires during the pendency of the suit/appeal/revision, the Act does not become applicable. It was held that suit has to be tried and decided without reference to the Act. We are in respectful agreement with the view expressed in Nand Kishore Marwah.;