- (1.) R. H. Zaidi, J. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. By means of this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioners challenge the validity of order dated 7-11-1987 whereby the suit filed by the contesting respondent was decreed by the trial Court and the order dated 26-11-1998 whereby the revision filed by the petitioners was dismissed by the Court below.
(2.) IT appears that the contesting Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 filed a suit for ejectment on the ground of default. The suit was contested by the petitioners. The trial Court after going though the material on the record, decreed the suit. Challeng ing the validity of the decree passed by the trial Court, petitioners filed a revision. The Revisional Court also dismissed the revision by its judgment and order dated 26-11- 1998. Hence the present petition, Learned Counsel for the petitioners vehemently urged that the pay ment as required under sub- section (4) of Section 20 of the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Evic tion) Act, 1972 (U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972), for short the Act was made, therefore, the petitioners were not liable to be ejected from the building in question. The Courts below have recorded concurrent findings of fact which are based on the material on the record to the effect that it was not proved that the provisions of sub- section (4) of Section 20 of the Act were applied. On the other hand it has been held by Courts below that in the meanwhile one of the family members of the petitioners has acquired a residential building therefore, the provisions of sub-section (4) of Section 20 of the Act were not applicable to the case which reads as under:- "20. Bar of suit for eviction of tenant except on specified grounds.- (1),. . . . . ,. . . . . . . (4) In any suit for eviction on the ground mentioned in clause (a), sub-section (2), if at the first hearing of the suit the tenant uncondition ally pays or tenders to the landlord or deposits in Court the entire amount of rent and damages for use and occupation of the building due from him (such damages for use and occupation being calculated at the same rate as rent) together with interest thereon at the rate of nine per cent per annum and the landlord's costs of the suit in respect thereof, after deducting therefrom any amount already deposited by the tenant under sub-section (1) of Section 30, the Court may in lieu of passing a decree for eviction on that ground pass an order relieving the tenant against his liability for eviction on that ground: Provided that nothing in this sub-section shall apply in relation to a tenant who or any member of whose family has built or has otherwise acquired in a vacant state, or has got vacated after acquisition any residential building in the same city, municipality, notified area or town area. " In the present case, firstly, the petitioners failed to prove that provisions of sub-section (4) of Section 20 of the Act were complied with and the requisite money was deposited on the first date of hearing. Secondly, one of the members of the family of the petitioners has acquired residential house, therefore, the Courts below did not commit any error of law or jurisdiction in decreeing the suit and dismissing the revision filed by the petitioners. The finding regarding acquisition of the residential house by a member of the family is based on relevant evidence on record and does not suffer from any error of law. Thus, in view of the proviso to sub-section (4) of Section 20 of the Act, the petitioners were not entitled to claim benefit of sub-section (4) of Section 20 of the Act. I do not fim any illegality or infirmity in the impugned orders. No case for interference under Article 226 of the Con stitution of India is made out. The writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed. Petition dismissed. .;