N.D.Ojha, J. - (1.) The petitioner is the landlord of an accommodation of which respondent No. 2 is the tenant. A suit was instituted by the petitioner for ejectment of respondent No. 2 and for recovery of arrears of rent on the ground that his tenancy had been terminated and the house having been constructed in the year 1964-65 the provisions of U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (U.P. Act 13 of 1972) were not applicable. Respondent No. 2 contested the suit asserting that the house had been constructed prior to the year 1960 and consequently U.P Act 13 of 1972 was applicable and as no grounds contemplated by section 20 of the Act were available a decree for ejectment could not be passed. In the alternative he, on the basis of certain deposits hiving been made by him purporting to be under Section 39 of U.P. Act 13 of 1972, claimed immunity from ejectment under the said section. The Judge, Small Cause Court, accepted the case of the petitioner that the house in question had been constructed in the year 1964-65 and the suit having been instituted in 1973, i.e., before the expiry of ten years from the date of the construction o the house the provisions of U.P. Act 13 of 1972 were not applicable. In regard to the plea raised by respondent No. 2 that he was entitled to the benefit of Section 39 of U.P. Act 13 of 1972 the Judge, Small Cause Court, held that even if it may be accepted that the necessary deposits contemplated by Section 39 had been made by respondent No. 2 he was yet not entitled to the benefit of the said section inasmuch as that section applied only to such suits which had been instituted before 15th July, 1972, the date of the commencement of the Act. On these findings the suit filed by the petitioner was decreed. Aggrieved by that order respondent No. 2 preferred a revision under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act before the District Judge. The said revision was decided by the 3rd Additional District Judge, Mathura, respondent No. 1, on 19th July, 1979, and was allowed. The Additional District Judge reversed the finding of the Judge, Small Cause Court, that the house in question had been constructed in 1964-65. Even without recording a categorical finding in regard to the year in which the house in question was constructed he held that respondent No. 2 was entitled to the benefit of U.P. Act 13 of 1972 meaning thereby that since no ground contemplated by Section 20 was available a decree for ejectment against respondent No. 2 could not be passed. Presumably in view of the above finding the Additional District Judge did not consider it necessary to go into the question as to whether respondent No 2 was entitled to the benefit of Section 39 of U.P. Act 13 of 1972 or not. It is this order which is sought to be quashed in this writ petition.
(2.) It was urged by counsel for the petitioner that exercising the power of a revisional court under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act it was not open to the Additional District Judge to have reversed the finding of fact recorded by the Judge, Small Cause Court, that the house in question had been constructed in the year 1964-65.
(3.) For the tenant respondent on the other hand it was urged that the plea as to when the house in question was constructed raised an issue about a jurisdictional fact and the Additional District Judge was competent to go into that question even in a revision under Section 25 aforesaid.;