R.H. Zaidi, J. - (1.) PRESENT revision arises out of a suit for ejectment, recovery of rent and damages and is directed against the judgment and order dated 3.10.2000. It appears that plaintiff -respondent filed a suit for ejectment and recovery of rent and damages pleading that 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 to the building in question, which was contested by the defendants -revisionists, who filed their written statement controverting the facts stated in the plaint. It was also pleaded that parties entered into a compromise on 22.8.1999, on the basis of which after payment of two month's rent @ Rs. 1,200/ - per month, the petitioners were permitted to remain in occupation of the building in question, therefore, the suit was liable to be dismissed. In support of their cases, parties produced evidence oral and documentary before the trial Court. The trial Court on the basis of pleadings of the parties, framed relevant issues. The trial Court after going through the evidence on the record, decreed the suit by its judgment and decree dated 3.10.2000. Hence, the present revision.
(2.) LEARNED counsel for the revisionists submitted that the Court below has acted illegally in ignoring and misreading the evidence on the record and decreeing the suit. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent supported the validity of the judgment and decree passed by the Court below. It was urged that the findings recorded by the Court below are all findings of fact. No question of jurisdiction was involved in the present case, therefore, the revision was liable to be dismissed.
(3.) I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record.;