Sudhir Narain, J. - (1.) THIS writ petition is directed against the order dated 3 -12 -1977 and 4 -6 -1976 passed by the Respondents 1 and 2 respectively in suit No. 85 of 1972.
(2.) THE Petitioner is a tenant of a shop cum -residential accommodation situate in Doiwala, Distt. Dehradun. Smt. Krishnawati and the Respondents 3 to 5 filed suit No. 85 of 1972 against the Petitioner for arrears of rent, ejectment and damages. They filed suit on the ground that U.P. Act, 13 of 1972 did not apply to the locality where the accommodation in question was in existence They terminated the tenancy of the Petitioner and inspite of the service of the notice he did not vacate the premises. The provisions of U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of lettings, rent and eviction) Act, 1972 were not applicable to the disputed premises. In the suit summons were issued by ordinary process as well as by registered post to the Petitioner. He received the summons by registered post on 7 -6 -1973 and the summons by ordinary process on 1 -7 -1973. He deposited rent etc. in the Court purporting to be under Section 39 of U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of lettings, rent and eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The Petitioner also filed a written statement in the case and claimed the benefit of deposit which he made under the provisions of section 39 of the Act.
(3.) ON 31 -1 -1974, the plaintiffs filed an application for amendment of plaint stating that the property in question devolved on the death of Dr. Yogaraj on them only and the Respondents 6 and 7 be impleaded as parties to the suit. The application was allowed by Munsif Dehradun by order dated 11 -3 -1974. On 15 -5 -1975, the trial Court framed five issues in the case. The issue No. 4 was as to whether the Petitioner was entitled to the benefit of section 39 of the Act. The trial Court held that U.P. Act No. 3 of 1947 was applicable to the premises and thereafter U.P. Act No. 13 of 197? was applicable. The provisions of section 39 of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 was not applicable as the suit was filed on 1 -11 -1972 and it was not pending on the date of commencement of the Act i.e. 15 -7 -1972. He, however, held that summons were served on the Petitioner on 7 -6 -1973 and the Petitioner having not deposited the amount within one month from the date of knowledge of the suit he was not entitled to the benefit of the said section. The Petitioner filed revision against the said order and the Addl. District Judge Dehradun affirmed the said order by order dated 3 -12 -1977.;