A.B.Srivastava - (1.) THIS revision under section 25 of the Provincial Small Causes Court Act is directed against a Judgment and decree dated 23-12-1985 of the I Additional District Judge, Bijnor, exercising powers of J.SC.C whereby he dismissed the suit of the plaintiff-revisionist for ejectment, arrears of rent and damages.
(2.) THE suit was filed by the plaintiff-revisionist alleging that he is landlord of the accommodation in suit: in which the defendant was a tenant at Rs. 600/- per month rent, in addition to electricity charges. THE accommodation in question being a November 1973 construction, it had not completed 10 years when the suit was filed, as such it was not governed by U. P. Act 13 of 1972, the plaintiff served a notice under section 106 of the T. P .Act terminating the tenancy of the defendant and on expiry of the period of notice filer! the suit. Allegation of the defendants having committed nuisance and the plaintiff requiring the: accommodation for his own use was also made. The defendants opposite party contested the suit with allegations that the suit as framed is not maintainable, the accommodation in question was constructed in 1970 and as such, lis governed by U. P. Act 13 of 1972. No notice under Section 106 of the T. P. Act was given, alternatively the notice given is illegal The defendant has not blocked any passage nor committed any nuisance. The learned J.S.C.C held that the 10 years' period from the date of construction having completed in 1983 during pendency of the suit, Act 13 of 1972 became applicable to this accommodation Relying on a Full Bench decision of this Court reported in 1985 (1) ARC 215, he held that the defendant tenant being a public sector corporation the suit was not maintainable because the protection granted to such corporations by section 2 (1) (a) and 3 (o) as amended by U. P Act 28 of 1976 was retrospective in application. He found that the a plaintiff did not require the accommodation for his own use no material alteration or nuisance was committed by the defendant, the notice was duly served on the defendant and was not illegal. Further he held the frame of the suit to be defective in so far as it was not dear whether the corporation was sued through the Divisional Manager or the Chairman. With these findings he dismissed the suit. Aggrieved, this revision.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the parties have been heard and the record gone through. At the very out set it may be mentioned that the question of bonafide requirement or otherwise of tike building in question by the revisionist landlord was not at all a relevant: question in an ejectment suit. Such question would be relevant when a release application is filed under section 21 of Act 13 of 1972. Learned J.S.CC thus was not justified in raising an issue or deciding this question.;