ANJANI KUMAR, J. - (1.) BY means of present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner-tenant challenges the order passed by the trial Court as well as revisional Court.
(2.) THE facts leading to the filing of the present writ petition are that the landlord-respondent filed a suit before the Judge, Small Causes Court for the ejectment of the petitioner-tenant from the shop in dispute in which the petitioner was the tenant on a monthly rent of Rs. 5/- after terminating the tenancy of the petitioner by notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. The plaintiff-landlord has taken up the case that the property in question vests in Public Charitable Religious Trust, therefore the provisions of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972, which shall hereinafter referred to as the 'Act', are not applicable. Building owned by Public Religious Trust and Public Charitable Trust are exempted from the application of the provisions of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 by virtue of the provisions of sub-clauses (bb) and (bbb) of Section 2 (1) of amended Act, which has been brought into the Statute Book by U.P. Act No. 5 of 1995. The petitioner-tenant denied the allegations made by the plaintiff and has also taken up a stand that the provisions of the Act are applicable and he has deposited the entire arrears of rent under Section 30 of the Act, therefore he has not committed any default, as alleged by the plaintiff and since the provisions of the Act are applicable, no suit can be filed for eviction of the petitioner-tenant, except on the grounds specified under sub- section (2) of Section 20 of the Act, no such grounds are made out by plaintiff. In any view of the matter, since the petitioner-tenant has deposited the entire arrears of rent, in a proceeding under Section 30 of the Act, no decree of ejectment can be passed against the petitioner-tenant. Some other grounds were also taken up by the petitioner-tenant with regard to maintainability of the suit. The trial Court after exchange of the pleadings by the parties has recorded a categorical finding on issue Nos. 1 and 2 regarding applicability of the Act to the tenancy in question and summed up that the provisions of the Act do not apply to the tenancy in question. The trial Court also arrived at the finding that the tenancy has been terminated by serving a valid notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act and since U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 are not applicable, the petitioner-tenant cannot get any benefit out of the alleged deposit in a proceeding under Section 30 of the Act, thus, the trial Court decreed the suit. Aggrieved by the decree of the trial Court, the petitioner- tenant preferred a revision under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act before the revisional Court. The revisional Court affirmed the findings arrived at by the trial Court with regard to the applicability of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 and also regarding the termination of the tenancy by a valid notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. Thus, the revision filed by the petitioner-tenant was dismissed by the revisional Court.
(3.) SRI B.D. Mandhyan, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner-tenant contended that the provisions of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 as inserted by the amendment by U.P. Act No. 5 of 1995 is ultra virus in view of the recent decision of the Kerala High Court reported in (1992) 1 Ker LT 85 (FB), Lakshmanan v. Mohamood. The aforesaid decision of the Kerala High Court was the subject-matter of an appeal before the apex Court and the judgment of the apex Court is reported in AIR 2001 Supreme Court 2543, Christ the King Cathedral v. John Ancheril and another, wherein the judgment of the Kerala High Court was reversed by the apex Court.;