- (1.) THIS writ petition has been filed against the judgement and order dated 18.07.2011 passed by Lower Appellate Court/Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court No. 5, Mathura, whereby the order passed by the Trial Court dated 26.10.2009 was set aside and the matter was remanded to the Trial Court.
(2.) BRIEF facts of the case as set out in the writ petition are as follows:- The petitioner purchased the disputed shop by registered sale deed dated 03.06.2004. The petitioner sent a registered notice under Section 106 of Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (in short "T.P. Act") which was duly served upon the tenant- opposite party and also replied by him. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a S.C.C. Suit No. 8 of 2005 for arrears of rent and ejectment. The respondent-tenant filed a written statement admitting the fact that the petitioner is a landlord and the rent is Rs.150/- per month. The Trial Court by order dated 26.10.2009 decreed the suit for arrears of rent holding that the U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972 (in short "the Act") is not applicable to the property in dispute. It was also held that the respondent-tenant committed default in payment of rent and is not entitled to benefit of Section 114 of the T.P. Act. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said order, the respondent filed a Revision, which was registered as S.C.C. Revision No. 20 of 2009. The Revisional Court by order dated 18.07.2011 allowed the revision and remanded the matter to the Trial Court for disposal afresh mainly on the ground that the Court below had erred in not giving the benefit of Section 114 of the T.P. Act. Hence the present writ petition. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has mainly argued that the order passed by the Revisional Court is wholly erroneous, perverse and arbitrary, therefore, it is liable to be set aside. It is not disputed that no written lease agreement was executed between the parties, so, it can not be said that the lease was determined by way of forfeiture as provided under Section 111(g) of the T.P. Act. That being so, the necessary corollary whereof would be that the Provision of Section 114 of the T.P. Act would also not be applicable. Thus the respondent can not claim any benefit of Section 114 of the T.P. Act.;