S.K.MUKHERJEE - (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the applicant.
(2.) THIS revision has been filed by the tenant-defendant, Dhirendra Kumar Gupta. It appears that the plaintiff-respondent filed a suit for ejectment, recovery of arrears of rent and damages etc. against the tenant- defendant alleging himself as the landlord of the disputed premises. Admittedly, the original landlord by a registered lease-deed dated 2-8-1981 conferred rights to the present plaintiff-respondent to realise rent from the existing tenants and to file a suit for ejectment after termination of their tenancy etc. By means of an application 65-C the present applicant prayed that there is no previty of contract between the plaintiff and the defendant and a question of title is involved in the suit and the Judge, Small Causes Court has no jurisdiction to try the same. Relying upon the provisions of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act and also two cases referred in the judgment the Court came to the conclusion that the plaintiff has a legal right to file and maintain the present suit and rejected the application 65-C by his order dated 4-9-1989. The present revision has been filed against this order dated 4-9-1989. Learned counsel for the applicant has urged that this is a case where there was no previty of contract between the present plaintiff and the defendant-tenant and the premises in dispute is covered by the provision of the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, herein-after referred to as the Act, 1972). He has relied upon the provisions of Section 38 of the Act, 1972. Section 38 of the Act, 1972 runs as under:- "The provisions of this Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (Act No. IV of 1882), or in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (Act No. V of 1908)." The argument of the learned counsel for the applicant has no legs to stand. I do not find any inconsistency in the provisions of Act, 1972 and Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act. In fact, landlord has been defined under sub-clause (j) of Section 3 of the Act, 1972. Sub-clause (j) of Section 3 of the Act, 1972 states as under :- "landlord", in relation to a building, means a person to whom its rent is or if the building were let would be, payable, and includes, except in clause (h), the agent or attorney, or such person The plaintiff in the present suit comes within the definition of 'landlord' by virtue of the aforesaid lease-deed. In this view of the matter, there is no inconsistency as tried to be irgued. Learned counsel for the applicant has not, at all, tried to distinguish the cases relied upon by the court below. This revision is wholly misconceived and is, therefore, dismissed." Learned counsel for the revisionist after the conclusion of the judgment also urged that the period mentioned in the lease-deed dated 2nd of August, 1981 has already expired and for that reason also the plaintiff cannot maintain the present suit. This objection has not been dealt with by the court below. In case, the revisionist has any objection to this effect, he may approach the court below and make an application to that effect. It shall be open to the court below to decide the same in accordance with law.;