- (1.) At the time of argument the Counsel for the respondent sought to file a supplementary counter-affidavit stating that the finding that the Act was not applicable, was incorrect. It is apparent that this writ petition was filed in 1998, counter was filed in 2001 and the rejoinder affidavit was also filed. Coupled with the fact that the petitioner had never challenged the said finding, the Court is not inclined to accept the affidavit after lapse of twelve years and prolong the pendency further. This petition is directed against a revisional order dated 13.7.1998 by which the suit for eviction and recovery of arrears of rent has been dismissed and the decree of the Trial Court has been reversed.
(2.) The petitioner landlord instituted a S.C.C. Suit No. 5 of 1995 with the allegation that the petitioner was a tenant in the disputed accommodation at the rate of Rs. 300/- per month but he fell in arrears since 1.11.1993 and despite notice dated 6.3.1995 neither he paid the arrears of rent nor vacated the premises. It was also pleaded that since it was a new construction, U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 did not apply.
(3.) After contest the suit was decreed vide order and judgment dated 23.12.1997 with the finding that the U.P. Act No. 13 was not applicable and the entire arrears of rent had not been paid. In revision the Revisional Court upheld the finding so far as the applicability of the Act is concerned but it held that the notice terminating the vacancy was invalid as it did not determine the tenancy.;