R.H. Zaidi, J. - (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Rajesh Tandon, Advocate, appearing for the respondent No. 3. By means of this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India petitioner challenges the validity of the order dated 15.10.1993 whereby the suit filed by contesting respondent No. 3 was decreed by the trial Court and the judgment and order dated 18.7.2000 whereby the revision filed by the petitioner against the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court, was dismissed by the Court below.
(2.) IT appears that plaintiff respondent filed a suit, which was 'decreed on 6.12.1983 for ejectment and recovery of rent. The said decree has become final. However, it has been stated that after the said decree was passed, parties entered into a compromise on the basis of which the petitioner was permitted to continue in occupation of the building in question. Thereafter it was on 3.12.1987 a notice of demand and termination of tenancy was served by the respondent upon the petitioner. It was claimed that the building in question was a new construction over which 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, had no application. The petitioner gave reply of the aforesaid notice controverting the facts stated therein. Thereafter, plaintiff respondent No. 3 filed a Suit No. 14 of 1988 for the above mentioned relief. The petitioner in the said suit filed his written statement controverting the facts stated in the plaint and denying the claim of the plaintiff respondent. The trial Court on the basis of the pleadings of the parties framed relevant issues. Parties to the suit produced evidence, oral and documentary, in support of their cases. From the evidence on record, the trial Court came to the conclusion that the building in question was a new construction which was completed in the year 1980 (on 1.4.1980 being the date of first assessment) and that the provisions of the Act had no application over the building in question. Having recorded the said finding, the suit was decreed by the trial Court by its judgment and decree dated 15.10.1993. Challenging the validity of the said decree, the petitioner filed a revision before the Court below. The Court below affirmed the findings recorded by the trial Court and dismissed the revision by its judgment and order dated 18.7.2000. Hence, the present petition.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner urged that in the earlier Suit No. 115 of 1982, the landlord respondent admitted that the building in question was constructed in the year 1978. The said admission was binding upon him, therefore, the Courts below had no jurisdiction to decide the date of completion of the construction of the building in accordance with clause (a) of Explanation I to sub -section (2) of Section 2 of the Act. The Courts below have erred in law in decreeing the suit and dismissing the revision filed by the petitioner, therefore, the judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below were liable to be set aside. Reliance in support of his submission is placed by learned counsel for the petitioner upon decision in Hriday Narain and another v. Maloo Lal Srivastava. : 1986 (12) AIR 131;