S. P. Srivastava. J. - (1.) THIS petition by a defendant tenant arises out of a suit filed by the plaintiff respondent No. 3 praying for a decree of ejectment of the petitioner from the premises in dispute and for the recovery of mesne profits peadente-lite and future at the rate of 125/- per month, which suit had been decreed by the Judge Small Cause Courts, Shahjahanpur and this decree was affirmed in revision by the respondent No 1.
(2.) ACCORDING to the plain allegations, the building in question had been newly constructed in the year 1976 and had been let out to the tenant in the same year for being utilised for business purposes at the rent of Rs 125/- per month. It was asserted by the plaintiff that the premises In dispute did not fall within the preview of U. P. Urban Building Regulations of Letting and Eviction Act, 1972 and stood exempted from the operation of the said Act on account of the said building having been constructed in the year 1976. Inspite of the service of the notice, terminating the tenancy, the defendant had not vacated the premises in dispute, hence the suit. The defendant petitioner had contested the suit referred to above, asserting that the building in question was more than 10 years old. It was further asserted that the defendant had paid an amount of Rs. 5,160/- to the plaintiff landlord on 21-9-1976 by way of advance rent under an agreement with a stipulation that the said amount shall be adjusted at the rate of Rs. 50/- per month, The defendant asserted that so long as the aforesaid amount was not adjusted as stipulated in the agreement, the plaintiff could not seek ejectment of the petitioner from the accommodation in dispute and could not be deemed to have any right to sue, The trial Court after carefully considering the evidence and the materials on record accepted the case of the landlord about the building in question being exempt from the operation of the U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972. In this connection, the trial court relied upon the direct evidence about the construction of the building in question in the year 1976, which had been led by the plaintiff landlord. The trial court further placed reliance upon the clear cut and categorical admission of the tenant petitioner contained in the rent deed executed by him, wherein it had been clearly and in categorical terms admitted by the defendant that the building in question was a new construction. The trial court also negatived the case of the defendant to the effect that he had paid an amount of Rs. 5,160/- on 21-9-1976 by way of advance rent. In this connection the trial court placed reliance upon the admission of the tenant to the effect that the aforesaid amount had been advanced as a loan. The trial court further referred to the agreement dated 21-9-1976 and found that even in the said document, the nature of the amount of Rs. 5,160/- had been disclosed as a loan. The trial court did not find any defect In the notice terminating the tenancy of the petitioner and on the aforesaid findings, decreed the suit as claimed.
(3.) THE decree passed by the trial court was challenged by the petitioner In revision under section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act before the regional Court THE revisional Court in its turn upheld the findings recorded by the trial court and dismissed the revision. I have heard Shri Ajit Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner In support of the writ petition and Shri R. K. lain, learned counsel representing the contesting respondents in opposition to the writ petition.;