Tarun Agarwala, J. - (1.) The plaintiffs filed a suit before the Judge Small Cause Court for ejectment of the tenant and for possession alleging therein that they are the owners and landlords of the accommodation in question and that the tenant was in arrears of rent and inspite of demand, the tenant had failed to pay the rent. The plaintiffs further alleged that a composite notice Under Section 80, C.P.C. read with Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, was duly served upon the tenant and inspite of service of notice, the accommodation in question was not vacated nor the arrears of rent had been paid. The plaintiff also submitted that the building in question is a public building and was exempted from the operation of U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972.
(2.) The State of U. P. who is the tenant, contested the claim and submitted that they are not in arrears of rent and that they had deposited the entire rent, water tax etc. Under Section 30 of U. P. Act No. 13, of 1972. The tenant further submitted that U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 was applicable and that they could not be evicted. The tenant further submitted that in view of U. P. Ordinance No. 28 of 1983, the provision of U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 became applicable and, therefore, in view of the said Ordinance, the tenant could not be evicted.
(3.) The Judge Small Cause Court after determining the points in issue decreed the suit of the plaintiff- landlord. The Judge Small Cause Court held that the composite notice issued by the landlord was a valid notice and had determined the tenancy. The Court further held that U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 was not applicable and that U. P. Ordinance No. 28 of 1983 was only prospective in nature and was not applicable in the present case.;