- (1.) U. S. Tripathi, J. This writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 18-1-2001 passed by respondent No. 1 in rent appeal No. 67 of 2000.
(2.) THE respondent No. 2 landlord of premises No. 67-S (123/690) Guru Nanak Motor Market, Gadarian Purwa, Kanpur City filed suit against the petitioner tenant for his ejectment and recovery of arrears of damages with the allegations that one shop in above premises was let out to petitioner through an agreement deed up to 31-10-1998 with an option to extent period of tenancy on execution of fresh deed. After 31-10-1988 option for exten sion of tenancy was not availed by the petitioner tenant and therefore his tenan cy stood terminated on 31-10-1988. THE petitioner was liable to hand over vacant possession of premises in question along with damages at the rate of Rs. 40 per day. THE tenancy of the petitioner was also ter minated by notice under Section 106, Trans fer of Property Act, which was served upon him on 18-2-1989. But neither he vacated the premises, nor paid the damages. The petitioner contested the suit mainly on the ground that first assessment of the premises in question came into ef fect with effect from 21-3-1979 and there fore provisions of U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972, hereinafter called the Act, became applicable over the said premises on 21-3-1979, before filing of suit and there fore, he was entitled to protection under the said Act and suit was not main tainable. The lease-deed got extended as the landlord respondent No. 2 accepted the rent at enhanced rate by enhancing 20% of the previous rent and therefore accepted the petitioner as tenant beyond 31-10- 1988. The trial Court (Judge, Small Causes Court) on considering the evidence of the parties held that first as sessment of the premises in question came into effect with effect from 1-4-1979, and suit was filed prior to that date, therefore, provisions of Act were not applicable to the premises in question. No fresh deed of tenancy was executed between the parties after 31-10-1988, therefore tenancy of the petitioner expired on 31-10-1988 and also stood terminated on service of simple notice under Section 106 of Transfer of Property Act. With these findings it decreed the suit, vide judgment and decree dated 12-5-2000.
(3.) AGGRIEVED with the above judg ment and decree the petitioner filed S. C. C. Revision before the District Judge, which was decided by XIIIth Additional District Judge, who concurring with the finding recorded by the trial Court dismissed the revision. The above order of Revisional Court has been challenged in this writ petition.;