S.U. Khan, J. - (1.) LANDLADY -respondent No. 2 Suhaga Devi filed SCC Suit No. 800 of 1979 against petitioner -tenant and respondent No. 3 Suresh Pandey. In the plaint it was alleged that the rate of rent was Rs. 15/ - per month, petitioner -tenant had not paid the rent since 15.5.1973 and he had sublet the accommodation in dispute to respondent No. 3. Additional J.S.C.C., Kanpur through judgment and decree dated 2.4.1980 decreed the suit for eviction and recovery of arrears of rent alongwith damages for use and occupation pendente lite and future at the rate of Rs. 15/ - per month. Against the said judgment and decree tenant -petitioner filed SCC Revision No. 77 of 1980, VI. A.D.J., Kanpur through judgment and order dated 20.1.1984 dismissed the revision hence this writ petition. The issue of sub -tenancy has been decided in favour of the tenant and both the Courts below have held that tenant -petitioner did not sub -let the accommodation in dispute to respondent No. 3.
(2.) THE question of default has been decided in favour of the landlord and it has been held that tenant did not pay the rent since 15.5.1973 as claimed in the plaint. Tenant deposited the entire arrears of rent alongwith interest and cost of the suit and claimed benefit of section 20(4) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 by filing an application to that effect. The landlord filed objections and stated therein that tenant had got another house bearing No. 11/61 Shootorganj, Kanpur hence by virtue of proviso to section 20(4) of the Act, he was not entitled to the protection of the said sub -section. The said proviso is quoted below: - - Provided that nothing in this sub -section shall apply in relation to a tenant who or any member of whose family has built or has otherwise acquired in a vacant state or has got vacated after acquisition any residential building in the same city municipality notified area or town area.
(3.) TENANT filed copy of an earlier judgment in which it was held that other house had been acquired by him before 5.7.1972 the date on which U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 was enforced hence the proviso to section 20(4) was not attracted as it was prospective.;