- (1.) A. K. Yog, J. Both the above men tioned Writ Petitions arise out of proceedings relating to J. S. C. C. Suit No. 50 of 1996 and hence, as admitted by the Counsels for the parties, decided together by means of a common judgment, a copy of this judg ment shall also be placed on the record of Writ Petition No. 23570 of 2000.
(2.) PETITIONER (Defendant/tenant) seeks to challenge the impugned judgment and order dated 10th February, 2000 (Writ Annexure No. 1) passed by Revisional Authority (Proforma Respondent No. 2) under Section 25, Provincial Small Causes Court, Act, whereby S. C. C. Revision No. 154 of 1998 (S. Arjun Singh v. Sanatan Dharm Sabha and others) has been dismissed affirming judgment and order dated 22nd August, 1998 passed by Judge Small Causes Court, Kanpur Nagar in S. C. C. Suit No. 50 of 1996 (Writ Annexure No. 2) Copy of the plaint has been annexed as Annexurc-3 to the Writ Petition. Sanatan Dharm Sabha, Kaushalpuri, Kanpur, a registered society under Societies Registration Act, 1860 filed aforementioned suit, inter alia, amongst other grounds contending that Plaintiff's society was the owner-landlord of the Accommodation in question, wherein Defendant was a tenant. Plaintiff also submitted in Para 1 of the plaint that society was registered with the Income Tax Department, Kanpur vide order dated 25th September, 1980 as charitable institution. It was also contended in para 5 of the plaint that 'aims and objects' of the plaintiff's society are of public interest and are that of the charitable institution. Hence, its nature and character is that of a charitable and religious trust. Consequently, it is mentioned in the plaint that the provisions of Amended U. P. Act, 13 of 1972 are not applicable inasmuch as the accom modation belonging to the public charitable and religious trust were ex empted from the purview of U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972 (for short called the Act' ). It is stated that notice under Section 106, Transfer of Property Act was served in accordance with law, the tenant was a bad pay master who committed default in pay ment of rent for several months, etc. , (as mentioned in Para 6 of the plaint ).
(3.) DEFENDANT filed written statement (Annexure-4 to the Writ Petition ). Before the trial Court one Jagdish Awasthi appeared on behalf of the Plain tiff (Writ Annex-are No. 5 ). Plaintiff filed application No. 73-Ga praying for amend ment in the plaint but trial Court refused to allow proposed amendment vide order dated 5th April, 1997 (Writ Anncxure-8 ).;