Sibghat Ullah Khan, J. - (1.) THIS is landlord's writ petition. Their suit for eviction filed against tenant -respondent No. 2 Rahmat Ullah since deceased and survived by legal representatives was decreed by the Trial Court. However, Revisional Court reversed the said judgment and decree and dismissed the suit. The suit was registered as suit (S.C.C. Suit) No. 49 of 1973. Trial Court/J.S.C.C., Allahabad under point No. 2 held that the tenant in reply notice admitted that the building in dispute was constructed in the year 1972 hence U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 was not applicable thereupon. The Trial Court further held that tenancy had validly been terminated. Ultimately, the suit for eviction and recovery of arrears of rent till the date of filing of the suit along with pendente lite and future damages for use and occupation was decreed on 18.11.1983. Against the said judgment and decree tenant -respondent No. 2 filed Civil Revision No. 544 of 1983. IInd A.D.J., Allahabad allowed the revision on 6.4.1985 and dismissed the suit for ejectment. The Revisional Court maintained the decree for arrears of rent. Through, this writ petition the said judgment of the Revisional Court has been challenged by landlords. Before the Trial Court municipal extracts pertaining to house tax for the years 1965 to 1972 and 1972 to 1978 were filed. On the basis of the said municipal records the Revisional Court under point No. 1 held that: - It is proved that the disputed constructions are of 1965 -66.
(2.) EVEN if the finding of the Revisional Court regarding period of construction being 1965 -1966 is taken to be correct still suit deserved to be decreed. Suit had been filed in the year 1973. Even from 1965 only eight years period had expired and not ten years. At that time U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 became applicable after expiry of period of ten years from the date of construction of the building. Revisional Court was under the impression that if ten years' expired during pendency of the suit or revision, Act became applicable by virtue of section 39 of the Act in case deposit of rent etc. in accordance with the said section was made. Supreme Court in various authorities barring Vineet Kumar v. M.S. Wadhera : 1984 (10) ALR 115 (SC) has held that if at the time of filing of the suit U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 was not applicable to the building in dispute then it did not become applicable if period of exemption (ten years at the relevant time) expired during pendency of the suit. All the previous authorities in this regard have been discussed in the last authority of the Supreme Court on the said point in Kishan v. Manoj Kumar : AIR 1998 SC 999. In view of the above even after differing with the Trial Court regarding period of construction, Revisional Court could not reverse the judgment and decree of ejectment passed by the Trial Court. Accordingly, writ petition is allowed. Judgment and order passed by the Revisional Court is set aside. Judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court is restored. Tenant -respondents are granted six months' time to vacate provided that within one month from today they file an undertaking before the J.S.C.C. to the effect that on or before the expiry of the aforesaid period of six months they will willingly vacate and handover possession of the property in dispute to the landlord -petitioner. For this period of six months tenants -respondents shall deposit Rs. 3,000/ - as damages for use and occupation (at the rate of Rs. 500/ - per month) before the J.S.C.C. which shall at once be paid to the landlords -petitioners. Tenant -respondents are also directed to deposit within one month the entire decreetal amount due till date after deducting any amount already paid/deposited before the Trial Court for immediate payment to the landlords -petitioners. In case of default in compliance with either of these conditions tenants -respondents shall be evicted through process of Court after one month.;