- (1.) Heard Sri K.K. Arora, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Shiv Sagar Singh, learned counsel for the respondents.
(2.) This is tenant writ petition. He seeks quashing of the order passed by the Judge, Small Causes, Meerut dated 2nd February, 2006 in Small Causes Suit No. 173 of 1996 and that passed by the Additional District Judge, Court No. 3. Meerut dated 1st March, 2011, in S.C.C. Revision No. 15 of 2006.
(3.) Facts giving rise to the present writ petition are as follows : The landlord, late Mahendra Singh Gupta instituted a Small Causes Suit No. 173 of 1996 for eviction of the petitioner from the premises in question on the allegation that the premises in question is not covered by the provision of U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 and that the tenancy had been validly terminated under notice dated 31st August, 1996. After the parties exchanged their pleadings, the Judge. Small Causes framed following four issues for determination : (a) Whether the provision of the U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 were applicable to the premises in question or not? (b) Whether the notice of termination of tenancy was valid or not? (c) Whether the defendant was entitled to the benefit of Section 20 (4) of the U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972? and (d) The relief to which the defendant was entitled? The Judge, Small Causes after considering the evidence brought on record, especially the order of assessment dated 27th August, 1992 recorded that since the date for imposition of house tax has been fixed as 1st April, 1989, the same would be the date of first assessment. The premises in question had, therefore, not completed the requisite number of years of construction, so as to fall within the purview of U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972. For the same reasons, benefit of Section 20 (4) of U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 was denied to the defendant on the finding that the provisions of U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 were not attracted. So far as the validity of the notice terminating the tenancy is concerned, the Judge, Small Causes held that in view of amendments made in Section 106 of Transfer of Property Act, 1882, vide Act No. 3 of 2003, the notice although may be short of the requisite period, yet the suit will not fail as it has been instituted after expiry of the period of notice required under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. Therefore, the suit was decreed and the tenant was directed to be evicted. Not being satisfied with the order so passed by the Judge, Small Causes, the tenant filed S.C.C. Revision No. 15 of 2006. The revision has also been dismissed under the impugned order after affirming the finding recorded by the Judge, Small Causes. Hence the present writ petition.;