B.K.Rathi, J. - (1.) The dispute is regarding two shops situated in Mohalla Chola Market. Qasba and tehsil Kasganj, district Etah. The respondent Nos. 2 and 3 filed S.C.C. Suit No. 20 of 1979 for eviction of the petitioners from the disputed shops and for recovery of arrears of rent. It was alleged that U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972 does not apply to the shops in dispute as it was constructed in the year 1970 and first assessment came into force in the year 1971. The suit was filed on 9.2.1979 after the termination of tenancy by notice under Section 106 of Transfer of Properly Act. The suit was dismissed by the trial court on 28.2.1987 by judgment. Annexure-3 to the writ petition. Against that order, the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 filed S.C.C. Revision No. 17 of 1987 which have been allowed on 21.8.1996 by judgment Annexure-4 to the writ petition. Therefore, the petitioners have filed this writ petition invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with the request that judgment of the revisional court dated 21.8.1996. Annexure-4 to the writ petition be quashed.
(2.) 1 have heard Sri Vinod Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Amit Daga, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 2 and 3.
(3.) The only point that arise for decision in this petition is whether the U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972 is applicable to the premises in dispute or not. It is contended by the learned counsel for the respondents that there is concurrent finding of fact that the first assessment of the premises in dispute took place in the year 1971. That the suit was dismissed by the trial court on the basis of the findings that the Act became applicable during the pendency of the suit and, therefore, the petitioners are entitled to the benefits of Section 39 of the Act. It is contended that this position is now clear from the various judgments and it is to be seen whether the U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972 was applicable at the date when the suit was filed. The question whether the Act became applicable during the pendency of the suit is immaterial. This position of law has very fairly conceeded by the learned counsel for the petitioners.;