Ravi S.Dhavan - (1.) THIS revision is directed against the order and decree dated 8 August, 1983 passed by the Special Judge (E. C. Act), Etawah dismissing the S.C.C. Suit No. 2 of 1982 ; Seth Vishun Das v. The State of U.P. and another.
(2.) THE Court has heard the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner and has perused the record of the revision. No one has appeared on behalf of the State of U.P. and the commandant, 28th Battalion, Provincial Armed Constabulary,, Etawah. The facts are brief. The building in construction was completed in 1977. The commandant, 28th Battalion, Provincial Armed Constabulary, Etawah took it on lease and was put into possession of the building by the landlord Seth Vishun Das. At some stage there was default in the payment of rent with the result that the landlord served notice under section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. The notice was not responded to and the arrears in default were not tendered. Thus, the landlord filed the, aforesaid, suit. On the exchange of pleadings, the following issues were framed :- 1. Whether the building in dispute is governed by U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 ? 2.Whether there was valid agreement of lease ? 3.Whether there was an agreement that the defendant would continue to be tenants as long as they needed the accommodation ? 4.Whether the defendant no. 2 a juristic person ? 5.Whether the defendants' tenancy has been duly terminated ? 6.Whether the defendants committed any default in payment of rent ? The trial Court answered all the issues in favour of the landlord plaintiff except issue no. 4 and 5.
(3.) INSOFAR as issue no. 1 is concerned, the trial court was of the opinion that there being no controversy about the fact that the building had been constructed in 1977, clearly, the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of letting, Rent and Eviction Act). 1972, (hereinafter referred to as 'the U. P. Act 13 of 1972) did not apply and, thus, both the notice under section 106 and the suit, as had been brought, were correct. On issue no. 2, the trial court gave a finding, that regard being had to the fact, that the defendants did not deny that the premises had not been taken on lease and further admitted that they paid rent an agreement of tenancy was spelled out and a lease in writing was not necessary. In effect, a relationship of landlord and tenant existed.;