ANJANI KUMAR, J. - (1.) HEARD Sri B. Malik, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Sri V.K. Goel, learned Counsel representing Respondents 2 to 7/2 as well as learned Standing Counsel for Respondent No. 1.
(2.) BY means of the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner has challenged the order dated 19 -3 -2002, passed by the Revisional Court, Annexure -2 to the writ petition, whereby the decree of the trial Court dated 14 -10 -1999, passed by J.S.C.C., Moradabad decreeing the suit against the petitioner -tenant for his eviction from the accommodation in question has been upheld. The landlord terminated the tenancy of the petitioner by means of notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. The petitioner -tenant however denied this fact with regard to service of the notice, but the authorities below have recording a finding that the notice aforesaid was duly served on the petitioner -tenant.
(3.) IT is admitted fact that because of the non -compliance of the provisions of Order XV, Rule 5 for the filing of the written statement, the suit was proceeded ex -parte against the petitioner. Petitioner in paragraph 14 of his statement has stated that he has been inducted as tenant in the building in question in the year 1983. He further stated in paragraph 15 that the building in question is at least 15 years old and therefore U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 will be applicable and the suit should have been dealt with in accordance with the provision of Section 20 of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972. The landlord -plaintiffs produced the sanctioned map issued by the concerned local authority of the year 1981 in evidence, which has been allowed to be cross -examined by the Court the petitioner -tenant and after considering the evidence on record, the authorities have come to the conclusion that the accommodation in question is an accommodation on which U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 did not apply, the suit therefore was decree for eviction and arrears of rent. Aggrieved thereby the petitioner filed a revision before the Revisional Court. The Revisional Court agreed with the view taken by the trial Court and recorded a finding that the subordinate Court has not committed any error of law in decreeing the suit and therefore refused to interfere with the order of the trial Court.;