Prakash Krishna, J. - (1.) CHALLENGING the order and judgment dated 30.7.1990 passed by the Judge Small Cause Court, Agra in SCC Suit No. 16 of 1984 the present revision has been filed under section 25 of the Provincial Small Causes Court Act. Original Suit No. 16 of 1984 was instituted on the pleas interalia that the plaintiff is the owner and landlord of the property in question which is a new construction to which the provision of U.P Act No. 13 of 1972 are not applicable. It was let out to the defendant -tenant on a monthly rent of Rs. 1000/ - . The tenancy of the defendant -tenant has been terminated by serving a notice under section 80 CPC as also 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. The suit was contested by the defendant No. 1 only. He admitted the rate of rent @Rs.1000/ - per month. It was further pleaded that provisions of U.P Act No. 13 of 1972 are not applicable.
(2.) ON the basis of the pleadings of the parties, as many as eight issues were framed. The court below has found that the property in dispute is a new construction as it was assessed for the first time on 1.10.1978 and the suit was filed within a period of 10 years i.e on 25.4.1984. Heard the learned standing counsel for the applicant and Shri Kunwar Digvijay Singh for the plaintiff -opposite party. The court was taken through the findings recorded by the trial court. The findings on issues No. 1 & 5 relating to the date of the construction of the building in question is based upon the relevant material i.e the first assessment of the building in question. It does not suffer from any error either of law or fact. The learned standing counsel could not point out any illegality or perversity therein. The Court below has rightly observed as the provisions of U.P Act No. 1 3 of 1972 are not applicable, the defendant -tenant is not entitled to get the benefit of Section 20(4) of the said Act.
(3.) AT the end the learned standing counsel for the tenant prayed that some reasonable time to vacate the disputed accommodation may be granted.;