R.R.K.TRIVEDI, J. - (1.) IN this writ petition, counter and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged and both the learned Counsel have agreed that this writ petition may be disposed of finally at this stage.
(2.) FACTS giving rise to this writ petition are that the respondent No. 3 filed four separate suits before Judge Small Causes Court for ejectment of petitioners No. 1 to 4 after terminating tenancy under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act and sought a decree of ejectment against petitioners inter alia on the allegations that the petitioners committed default in payment of rent, their tenancy has been terminated and as shops in dispute are new constructions, the provisions of Act No. 13 of 1972, hereinafter referred to as 'Act', are not applicable. These suits were resisted by petitioners inter alia on the pleadings that the petitioners were tenants of different shops of old building and were paying rent of Rs. 20/- p.m. To this building, these provisions of Act were applicable. However the respondent No. 3 landlord requested the petitioners that as the building is old, it may be allowed to be demolished and the new shops will be constructed and will be given to the petitioners and there will be continuity of tenancy rights and they will be entitled for the protection of the Act. The only chance was stipulation that after reconstruction, the rent will be enhanced. The building was thereafter demolished. The petitioners were doing the business from the open land in front of these shops and continued to pay the rent during the building was reconstructed and after reconstruction they were again inducted as tenants of building on rent of Rs. 50/- p.m. Thus the provisions of the Act shall continue to apply to this building and they cannot be ejected from the accommodation in dispute. The trial court allowed both sides to adduce evidence. However it decreed the suit for ejectment of petitioners on 17th December, 1984. The decree of trial court was challenged in separate revisions. However the revisions have also been dismissed by a common judgment dated 6th August, 1985 which is Annexure-4 to the writ petition. Aggrieved by the aforesaid orders and decree passed against petitioners, this Court has been approached under Article 226 of the Constitution.
(3.) I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioners and learned Counsel for respondents and perused the impugned judgments and other materials on record.;