- (1.) S. U. Khan, J. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.
(2.) THIS is landlord's writ petition. Notice terminating the tenancy of tenant-respondent was given in April, 1971 and suit for eviction giving rise to the instant writ petition was filed in July, 1971. Suit was registered as SCC Suit No. 276 of 1971 on the file of JSCC/civil Judge, Hamirpur. Tenant-respondent No. 3 with a view to claim the benefit of Section 39 of U. P. Rent Regulation Act (U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972) deposited some amount, which according to him was sufficient in the year 1978. Building in dispute was constructed in the year 1960. By virtue of Section 39 of the Act in any suit for eviction of a tenant from any building to which the old Act (meaning thereby U. P. Act No. 3 of 1947) did not apply pending on the date of commencement of the Act where the tenant within one month from such date of commencement or from the date of his knowledge of the pendency of the suit whichever be later deposits, in the Court before which suit is pending the entire amount of rent etc. no decree for eviction shall be passed except on any of the grounds mentioned in the proviso to sub-section (1) or in clauses (b) to (g) of sub-section (2) of Section 20 of the Act. The suit was decreed through judgment and decree dated 31-7-1985 against which revision was filed. A. D. J. /special Judge (E. C. Act), Hamirpur through judgment and order dated 3-3-1987 allowed the revision in part and set aside the decree of eviction. Decree for recovery of arrears of rent etc. was maintained. The said judgment of the Revisional Court is under challenge in this writ petition by the landlord. Landlord - Ram Charan, who filed the writ petition has since died and is survived by legal representatives. In Vineet Kumar v. M. S. Wadhera, 1984 (10) ALR 115 (SC) the words 'commencement of the Act' used under Section 39 of the Act were held to mean the date on which the Act becomes applicable on a particular building. However, that view was later on dissented and held to be per incuriam and over ruled. The Supreme Court in Kishan v. Manoj Kumar, AIR 1998 SC 999,m has discussed all the authorities on this point including Vineet Kumar's authority. Now the consistent view of the Supreme Court is that words commencement of the Act' mean the date on which the said Act came into force i. e. 15-7-1972. In the instant case on 15-7-1972 the suit was pending hence Section 39 was clearly applicable. Unfortunately, tenant did not make any deposit required by the said section within the time provided by the said section. The deposit was made extremely late hence tenant was not entitled to the benefit of Section 39 of the Act. Accordingly, suit of the plaintiff deserved to be decreed only on the ground that tenancy had been terminated. The Revisional Court was unnecessarily influenced by the fact that when notice was given, tenant was defaulter of only two months hence ground of eviction as mentioned under Section 20 (2) (a) of the Act was not made out. As the Act had not come into force when notice was given and as its benefit was not claimed later on by making requisite deposit within requisite time as required and provided for under Section 39 of the Act hence tenant was not entitled to the benefit of the Act. Tenant is liable to eviction only and only on the ground that his tenancy had been terminated.
(3.) ACCORDINGLY, writ petition is allowed. Judgment and order passed by the Revisional Court to the extent to which it has reversed the decree of eviction of the trial Court is set aside. Entire judgment and decree of the trial Court including decree of eviction is restored. However, tenant-respondent No. 3 is granted nine months time to vacate provided that within one month from today he deposits the entire decreetal amount due till 3-5-2006 for immediate payment to the landlord and files an undertaking before the trial Court to the effect that on or before 3-5-2006 he will willingly vacate and handover possession of the property in dispute to the landlord-petitioner. Petition allowed. .;