TARUN CHATTERJEE, J. - (1.) THIS revisional application is directed against the judgment and order dated 20th October, 1987 passed by Smt. Sadhana Chaudhary, XIIth Additional District Judge, Meerut in J.S.C.C. No. 4 of 1980 by which the suit filed by the opposite party for eviction from the property, in question, realization of arrears of rent and damages was decreed against the petitioner.
(2.) AS noted hereinearlier, the opposite party filed a suit for eviction from the suit premises, in question, for realization of arrears of rent and damages on the allegations that the petitioner was the tenant of the suit property on a monthly rent of Rs. 1600/- since 26th January, 1976. According to the opposite party, the suit property was constructed in the year 1975, but after new constructions, tax was imposed over it on 1st April, 1978 and, therefore, according to the opposite party, U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as 'the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972') was not applicable to the suit property, in question, and that the suit property was newly constructed property of the opposite party. Since the petitioner defaulted in payment of rent despite notice, the opposite party terminated the tenancy of the petitioner and filed the aforesaid suit for eviction, realization of arrears of rent and damages. The said suit was contested by the petitioner on the ground that the building, in question, was not constructed in the year 1975, as it will be evident that the tax was asserted (assessed ?) after construction only on 1st April, 1978. That being the position, the petitioner claimed that the provisions of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 was applicable in respect of the building, in question. It was further claimed that the suit property, in question, was an old construction and, therefore, the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 was completely enforceable/applicable to the building, in question. It was also claimed in the written statement by the petitioner that the tenancy agreement between the parties was executed on 16th January, 1976, wherein it was stipulated that the tenancy shall continue for five years, but if the petitioner wanted to continue the tenancy, he had to continue his tenancy for further five years by enhancing the rent by 5%, after five years. Since the original period of tenancy, which was five years, had not expired, the opposite party was not competent to file the instant suit for eviction of the petitioner and accordingly, the suit was filed at a premature stage.
(3.) THE trial Court on consideration of the evidence and also on consideration of the petitioner's claim reached to a conclusion that the suit property, in question, was constructed on 1st April, 1978 and because of the fact that ten years from its construction were not completed sub-section (2) of Section 2 of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 cannot be made applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case. On the aforesaid findings, being the findings of fact, the trial Court decreed the suit against which the present application under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Causes Court Act has been filed by the petitioner, which was heard in the presence of learned Counsel for the parties.;