- (1.) WHEN this revision came up for admission before a learned Single Judge, he referred the following question for decision by a larger Bench and directed that the revision be listed for admission after the opinion of the larger Bench has been received :- "If a building is constructed in 1964 and suit is filed in 1972 for ejectment of the tenant and the suit is decreed in 1973 by the court of Small Causes and the revision instituted in 1973 under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act remains pending till 1974 and ten years' period since the completion of the construction lapsed, can the suit be dismissed on the ground that it was barred by Section 20 of the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulations of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972."
(2.) THE material facts giving rise to this revision are that on the 3rd May, 1972, plaintiff-respondent No. 1, claiming to be the landlord of the premises in question instituted a suit in the court of the learned City Munsif, Meerut, for ejectment of the applicant and defendant opposite party and for recovery of arrears of rent and pendente lite and future mesne profits at the rate of Rs. 45 per month. In consequence of the amendment of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887 by the Uttar Pradesh Civil Laws Amendment Act. 1972 which came into force on the 16th September, 1972, the suit came to be transferred to the court of the learned Judge, Small Causes at Meerut. The applicant and opposite party No. 2 resisted the claim on various pleas. Benefit of S. 39 of the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 - hereinafter referred to as the Act - was also claimed. The trial court decreed the suit for ejectment as well as for recovery of arrears of rent and pendente lite and future mesne profits. Aggrieved by the decree of the trial court, the defendant-applicant filed a revision before the learned IV Additional District Judge, Meerut. The court below upheld the finding recorded by the trial court that the premises in dispute has been constructed in the year 1964. The claim based on Section 39 of the Act was rejected since in the view of the court below the defendants were not entitled to its benefit "because the Act itself is not applicable to the case." In the result, the court below dismissed the revision with the modification that it was ordered that the defendants shall not be evicted till the 31st December, 1974.
(3.) AS far as the question framed by the learned Single Judge is concerned, a mere reading of Section 20 of the Act makes it clear that it must be answered in the negative. Section 20 of the Act, as far as material for our purposes is in the following terms :- "20 (1). Save as provided in sub-section (2), or in clause (r) of sub-section (2) of Section 43, no suit shall be instituted for the eviction of a tenant from a building, notwithstanding the determination of his tenancy by efflux of time or on the expiration of a notice to quit or in any other manner :- Provided that nothing in this sub-section shall bar a suit for the eviction of a tenant on the determination of his tenancy by efflux of time where the tenancy for a fixed term was entered into by or in pursuance of a compromise or adjustment arrived at with reference to a suit, appeal, revision or execution proceeding, which is either recorded in court or otherwise reduced to writing and signed by the tenant. (2) A suit for the eviction of a tenant from a building after the determination of his tenancy may be instituted on one or more of the following grounds, namely - ....... ....... ....... ...... ..... ...... ....... (emphasis supplied) ;