Sudhir Agarwal, J. - (1.) -Heard Sri Rajesh Kumar Singh, Advocate for the defendant-petitioner (hereinafter referred to as "petitioner") and Sri A.K.Gupta, Advocate assisted by Sri Ashish Agarwal, Advocate for the plaintiff-respondent No.1 (hereinafter referred to as "respondent").
(2.) The only question, which need be considered in this case having arisen from proceedings is: Whether Courts below were justified in denying benefit of Section 114 of Transfer of Property Act, 1882 to the petitioner.
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that once it is clear that Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as "Act, 1972") was not applicable to the building in dispute and the petitioner also has deposited entire arrears of rent etc., as contemplated in Section 114 of Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (hereinafter referred to as "Act, 1882"), he was entitled for the benefit thereof and decree for ejectment ought not to have been passed.;