N.N. Mithal, J. - (1.) THIS appeal by the tenant was heard by me at length and most of the controversies were decided in the order passed by me on 23rd of December, 1982. Two additional issues were framed and were remitted to the trial Court for its findings and the same have since been received in favour of the landlord. Objection against the findings has been filed by the Appellant and I have also heard parties Counsel at length. The issues remitted to the Court below were as under: 1. Whether in view of the allegations made in the application 19/C, the Defendant had failed to comply with the provisions of Order 15 Rule 5 Code of Civil Procedure?
(2.) WHETHER on the material available on the record on 14 -7 -79 it was a fit case in which defence should be ordered to be struck off? 2. On the first question, the Court below has returned a finding that the Defendant had failed to deposit the entire amount of rent or compensation as admitted to be due by him by the date of first hearing and had thus failed to comply with the requirement of Order 15 Rule 5 Code of Civil Procedure. On the second question also, the Court has recorded a finding that the grounds on which application C -22 was based explaining the delay in depositing the amount was based on false grounds and, therefore, the defence was liable to be struck off. Sri. Rajendra Kumar, learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant, now has not assailed any of the findings returned by the Court below. However, what he has urged is that the Plaintiff's suit was liable to be dismissed inasmuch as the Plaintiff had let out the premises to the Defendant in 1974 without first obtaining an order of allotment which was in violation of Section 11 of U.P. Act 13 of 1972. Relying upon the decision Naveen Chandra Sharma v. 6th Addl. District Judge, Meerut, AIR 1983 All. 116 the learned Counsel submitted that the very contract of tenancy being against law, the Plaintiff was not entitled to any indulgence by the Court. Even on admitted facts, the contention raised above cannot stand scrutiny. The notice of termination of tenancy was given to the Defendant on 5th October, 1976 and was actually served on him on 8th October, 1976. The suit giving rise to the present appeal was instituted on 14 -5 -1977. Section 14 of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 was drastically amended by U.P. Act No. 28 of 1976 which was enforced from 5 -7 -1976. This section reads as under: 14. Regularisation of occupation of existing tenants. Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act or any other law for the time being in force, any licensee (within the meaning of Section 2A), or a tenant in occupation of a building with the consent of the landlord immediately before the commencement of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) (Amendment) Act, 1976, not being a person against whom any suit or proceeding for eviction is pending before any Court or authority on the date of such commencement shall be deemed to be an authorised licensee or tenant of such building.
(3.) A plain reading of the Section will show that a legal fiction has been created by this provision in respect of those tenants who were in occupation of any building covered by the Act immediately before 5 -7 -1976 when the amending Act was enforced with the consent of the landlord, the only exception being that no suit or proceeding for eviction should be pending against such person on the date of such commencement. If this pre -condition was satisfied, though in contravention of Section 11 and without an allotment in his favour, his tenancy stood automatically regularised and it was not open for the parties to urge that on account of absence of allotment order, the contract of tenancy was void.;