- (1.) S. N. Srivastava, J. This writ petition is directed against order about maintainability of suit. A revision preferred against said order was also dismissed.
(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that Plaintiff filed a suit for eviction of the Defendant from the land in suit after terminating his tenancy by way of notice on the ground that Defendant who is a tenant of the land inspite of notice did not pay rent or vacated the premises, hence tenancy was terminated. Defendant in his written statement raised a question of jurisdiction on the ground that he constructed wooden Khokha with the permission of landlord. He is entitled to get protection of Section 29-A of Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, (U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972) (Hereinafter referred to as the Act) in the matter of eviction and the Act is applicable. The suit is not maintainable. Trial Court decided this issue in favour of plaintiff and held that the Act is not applicable and suit is maintainable. Heard learned Counsel for petitioners and perused materials on record. Learned Counsel for petitioners urged that petitioners made wooden constructions with the permission of Plaintiff and this wooden construction is building within the definition of the Act and that petitioners are entitled to get protection under Section 29-A of the Act. He also relied upon judgments reported in 1981 (U. P.) 1 RCC 452, Anwar Ahmad v. IVth Addl. District Judge, Saharanpur and 1965 ALJ 722, Ram Dularey v. D. D. Jain, in support of his case that wooden Khokha is a wooden structure and is building for the purpose of the Act and urged that impugned order is liable to be quashed.
(3.) AFTER considering arguments of learned Counsel for petitioners and upon careful perusal of materials on record, I consider it necessary to refer to Section 29-A of the Act, relevant portion of which is being reproduced below: Section 29-A of the Act "29-A. Protection Against eviction to certain classes of tenants of land on which building exists.- (2) This Section applies only to land let out, either before or after the commencement of this Section, where the tenant, with the landlords consent has erected any permanent structure and incurred expenses in execution thereof. " Section 29-A (2) of the Act makes it clear that in case Defendant has made any construction with the permission of landlord, protection of Section 29-A of the Act may be available to him. Even if argument of learned Counsel for petitioners is accepted that Khokha is a wooden roof structure and is a building as defined under the Act for the purposes of protection of Section 29-A (2) of the Act, in view of the finding recorded by the Court below that there is no evidence of permission of plaintiff-landlord for making such constructions law laid down by this Court in 1981 (U. P.) 1 RCC 452 and 1965 ALJ 722 (supra) does not support claim of petitioners.;