A.N.Varma, J. - (1.) THIS is an application in revision under section 25 of the Small Cause Courts Act. It is directed against the judgment and decree passed by the learned II Additional District Judge, Ghaziabad, exercising the powers of a Small Cause Court, decreeing a suit filed by the plaintiff-opposite party for the ejectment of the applicant from the premises in suit as well as for recovery of Rs. 1000/- as arrears of rent and damages for use and occupation for the period 15-1-1979 till the defendant vacates the premises at the rate of 2000/- per month.
(2.) BRIEFLY, the plaint case was that the plaintiff was the owner and landlady of the premises in suit of which the State Bank of Patiala, Ghaziabad, was the tenant. The building under tenancy was a new building to which the provisions of the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (U. P. Act XIII of 1972 for short) were not applicable. The plaintiff did not wish to continue the tenancy of the applicant, and, therefore, she determined the tenancy of the defendant by means of a notice under section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, asking the defendant to vacate the premises within one month of the service of notice. The defendant, however, did not vacate the premises and hence the suit for the reliefs mentioned above. The suit was contested by the applicant, inter alia, on the ground that the U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972 is applicable to the building in question and that as the defendant had deposited the entire amount contemplated under section 20 (4) of that Act, no decree for ejectment could be passed against it, in any case. Before the appellate court it appears that a plea was raised on behalf of the plaintiff that the building under tenancy being, on the undisputed facts, a 'public building' within the meaning of Section 2 (1) (a) of the aforesaid Act, the said Act was not applicable to the premises in any case regardless of whether the building was a new building or an old building. This plea has found favour with the court below. On the further finding that the tenancy of the defendant had been duly determined by means of the aforesaid notice served on it by the plaintiff-opposite party under section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, the court below decreed the suit for the ejectment of the applicant as well as for the recovery of certain amounts as arrears of rent and damages for use and occupation.
(3.) IN the revision Sri Raja Ram Agarwal, learned counsel for the applicant did not attempt to challenge the finding of the court below that the applicant, namely, the State Bank of Patiala, being a subsidiary of the State Bank of INdia the building under tenancy was a public building within the meaning of Section 2 (1) (a) read with Section 3 (o) of the aforesaid Act. INdeed he made his submissions on the premise that the building in question is a public building In support of the revision Sri Agarwal submitted two points for my consideration : (1) On a true and proper construction of the applicable provisions of the U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972 and the scheme underlying it, it must follow that notwithstanding the fact that Section 2 (1) (a) excludes from the operation of the Act 'Public building', the protection afforded to private tenants under section 20 is equally available to the tenants of 'public buildings'. (2) The amendments made in Bengal, Agra and Assam Civil Courts Act as well as in the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, providing for trial of suits by lessors for the eviction of lessees from a building by a Small Cause Court irrespective of the pecuniary valuation of the suits, is arbitrary, unreasonable and discriminatory and amounts to violation of the guarantee of equal protection of the laws enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution. ;