- (1.) ANJANI Kumar, J. The petitioner-tenant aggrieved by an order passed by the revisional Court dated 6th December, 1996 in civil revision No. 181 of 1996 under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, whereby revisional Court dismissed the revision filed by the petitioner-tenant against the order of the trial Court dated 29th August, 1996, approached this Court by means of present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
(2.) IN brief the facts leading to the fifing of present writ petition are that the petitioner is tenant of the accommodation in question which is a shop and admittedly the contesting respondents are the landlord. The landlord filed a suit after terminating the tenancy by serving a notice terminating the tenancy under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act with the allegation that the tenant is an arrears of rent and has not paid the same, therefore, prayed that the suit be decreed for the ejectment of the petitioner. It is specifically pleaded in the plains of the suit that the provisions of U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 are not applicable to the accommodation in question. The petitioner-tenant disputed the aforesaid proposition and contended that the provisions of UP Act No. 13 of 1972 are applicable. Both the parties were allowed to lead their evidences. The trial Court after considering the pleadings and evidence on record filed on behalf of both the parties arrived at the conclusion that the provisions of U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 are not applicable to the premises in question, thus the simple notice of termination under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act is sufficient to terminate the tenancy and the said suit was decreed. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner-tenant preferred a revision under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act. The revisional Court vide its order impugned in the present writ petition has affirmed the finding recorded by the trial Court. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner-tenant contended that the finding arrived at by the trial Court and affirmed by the revisional Court that the accommodation in question is covered under the provision of UP Act No 13 of 1972 is wholly erroneous and for this purposes, the trial Court as well as the revisional Court has relied upon an agreement said to have been entered into between the parties in the year 1988, which has already exhausted and therefore this evidence should not have been legally entertained by the Courts below. The trial Court as well as the revisional Court both have recorded finding that looking the aforesaid agreement with the sentence qualifying that this agreement has exhausted, but in order to resolve the controversy involved in this case as to whether the provisions of U P Act No. 13 of 1972 are applicable or not. It is necessary to look into the conduct of the parties and therefore considered the agreement of the year 1988. After taking into consideration recorded a finding that the provision of U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 is not applicable. This finding recorded by the trial Court has been affirmed by the revisional Court. I do not see any reason to defer with the finding arrived at by the trial Court and affirmed by the revisional Court, as no perversity has been pointed out by learned Counsel for the petitioner-tenant. In this view of the matter this writ petition has no force and deserves to be dismissed.
(3.) LASTLY it is submitted by learned Counsel for the petitioner- tenant that he is carrying on business in the shop in question therefore some time may be granted to the tenant to vacate the same. In the facts and circumstances of the case as also in the interest of justice. I direct that the order of eviction against the petitioner-tenant shall not be executed till 30th June, 2005 provided: (i) the petitioner-tenant furnishes an undertaking before the trial Court within a period of three, weeks from today to the effect that the petitioner-tenant shall handover the peaceful vacant possession of the shop in question to the landlord on or before 30th June, 2005; and (ii) the petitioner shall deposit the entire rent/damages at the rate of rent, if the same has not already deposited, to the landlord within the period of three weeks and continue to pay the same for use and occupation of the accommodation in question by the first week of succeeding month so long he remains in possession or till 30th June, 2005, whichever is earlier; (iii) in the event of default of any one condition mentioned above, it will be open to the landlord to get the order of eviction decreed. With the aforesaid observation this writ petition is dismissed. The interim order, if any stands vacated. However, the parties shall bear their own costs. Petition dismissed. .;