- (1.) R. H. Zaidi, J. Heard learned Coun sel for the petitioner.
(2.) BY means of this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India petitioner challenges the validity of the order dated 12-8-1999 passed by the respondent No. 1 and order dated 22-9-1998 passed by the respondent No. 2. It appears that the plaintiff-respondent No. 3 filed a suit for ejectment and recovery of rent which was registered as Suit No. 9 of 1995, on the ground that the provisions of the U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972 has no application to the building in question, and that tenancy was terminated in accordance with law. Suit was contested by the petitioner pleading that the build ing in question was an old building and the provisions of the Act were applicable to it. There existed no ground for his ejectment, therefore, suit was liable to be dismissed. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, trial Court framed relevant issues. There after, parties produced evidence in sup port of their cases. The trial Court recorded findings on the relevant issue in favour of plaintiff- respondent and decreed the suit on 22-9-1998. Challeng ing the validity of the said decree petitioner filed a revision before the Court below. The Court below has also affirmed the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court and dismissed the revision by its judgment and order dated 12-8-1999, hence the present petition. Learned Counsel for the petitioner vehemently urged that there was no pleading on behalf of the plaintiff-respondent that the building in question was first assessed in year 1985-86, Accord ing to them, the building in question was assessed in the year 1986-87, therefore, the Court below has acted illegally in relying upon the assessment for the year 1985-86 and holding that the provisions of the Act has no application to the building in ques tion. The judgment and order/decree passed by the Court below were, therefore, liable to be set aside.
(3.) 1 have considered the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. In the plaint, it is not disputed that it was pleaded that the provisions of the Act had no application over the building in question. The said fact was denied by the defendant-petitioner. The trial Court, on the basis of the pleadings of the parties, framed issues on the question as to whether the provisions of the Act were applicable. Parties produced evidence in support of their cases. The petitioner him self filed the assessment order for the year 1985-86. There was no other evidence to show that the building in question was assessed prior to the said order. The trial Court as well as the Court below have committed no error in placing the reliance on the assessment for the year 1985-86 and in holding that the suit was filed within ten years from the said period, therefore, the provisions of the Act had no application over the building in question/shop.;