S.P. Srivastava, J. - (1.) BEING aggrieved by a decree of ejectment and recovery of arrears of rent and damages for use and occupation against him in S.C.C. suit no. 218 of 1985, the Petitioner -tenant filed a revision under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Courts Act which was dismissed by Respondent No. 1 vide the judgment and order dated 25 -5 -88. He has now approached this Court for redress seeking the reversal thereof.
(2.) ON the pleadings of the parties, besides other issues which were framed in the suit, the trial Court had framed issue no. 2 which was to the effect as to whether the shop in dispute fell within the purview of U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (U.P. Act no. 13 of 1972) (hereinafter referred to as the Act). This issue was decided in favour of the landlord holding that the disputed premises had been constructed in the year 1976 and consequently fell out side the purview of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972. This finding was affirmed by the revisional Court. It is not disputed that if it is held that the premises in dispute fell out side the purview of U.P. Act no. 13 of 1972 there could be no impediment in the grant of the decree in favour of the Plaintiff -landlord. I have heard the learned Counsel for the partiers and have carefully perused the record.
(3.) THE learned Counsel for the Petitioner has challenged the finding recorded by the courts below on the issue no. 2 referred to above asserting that taking into consideration the provisions contained in section 1 and explanation 1 to section 2 of the U.P. Act no. 13 of 1972, the burden of proving that the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 was not applicable to the premises in dispute and the defendant was not entitled to the benefits of the protections envisaged thereunder squarely rested on the Plaintiff but has been wrongly placed on the defendant which has resulted in manifestly erroneous conclusions vitiating the aforesaid finding.;