Shashi Kant Gupta, J. - (1.) THIS writ petition is directed against the order dated 5.10.2011 passed by the Additional District Judge, Court No. 10, Meerut upholding the judgment and decree dated 2.4.2011 passed by the Judge Small Causes Court whereby the suit filed by the respondent -landlords for arrears of rent and ejectment was decreed in their favour.
(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are as follows; The plaintiff -respondents filed a SCC Suit No. 98 of 2001 in the Court of Small Causes, Meerut for arrears of rent and ejectment of the petitioner from the Shop No. 3 and 4 situated in Hotel Yadu Nandan Cinema Compound , Garh Road, Meerut. It was, inter alia, pleaded in the said suit that UP Act No. 13 of 1972 (in short "Act") is not applicable in the matter since the construction of the building in dispute was completed after 1985. The petitioner filed written statement and contested the suit. Both the parties led evidence oral and documentary in support of their respective cases. The trial court vide order dated 2.4.2011 decreed the suit holding that the construction of the building in question was completed after 1985, as such, UP Act No. 13 of 1972 was not applicable in the matter and also, inter alia, held the petitioner to be a defaulter in payment of rent. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and order dated 2.4.2011, the petitioner filed a revision under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Causes Court Act, 1887 which was registered as SCC Revision No. 35 of 2011. The revisional court by judgment and order dated 5.10.2011 dismissed the revision and affirmed the judgment and order dated 2.4.2011 passed by the trial court. Hence, the present writ petition.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the courts below have erred in law while holding that UP Act No. 13 of 1972 is not applicable in the matter. It was further submitted that the despite the cogent and convincing evidence on record, the courts below recorded a adverse finding that the Act is not applicable in the matter. In support of his contention that the building is an old construction constructed much prior to 1985, learned counsel for the petitioner further referred to the various documents.;