T.P. Garg, J. - (1.) THIS writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by Ram Swarup, tenant. is directed against the judgment dated 16.2.1983 (Annexure IX to this petition) rendered by 1st Additional District Judge, Banda, Respondent No. 1. in Civil Revision No. 12 of 1980 Keshav Dayal Saxena v. Ram Swarup and Anr. whereby the suit of the Plaintiff -landlord, Respondent No. 2, for ejectment and recovery of rent, etc., was decreed with costs.
(2.) THE facts in brief, shorn of details and necessary for the disposal of this case, lie in a narrow compass. On 19.3.1975, the Plaintiff Respondent No. 2 filed a suit for ejectment of the tenant Petitioner from the shop in dispute on the ground that the tenancy had been determined by a notice dated 18.1.1975 served on him on 20.1.75; that the shop in dispute was not governed by the provisions of U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') as it was reconstructed in the year 1966 and assessed by the Municipal Board with effect from 1.4.1970 and that the tenant had sub -let a portion of the shop in dispute to one Salim. The tenant (Petitioner) contested the suit and filed a written statement where it was denied that any portion of the shop had been sub -let as alleged. It was urged that the shop in dispute was an old construction and it was governed by the provisions of Act No. 13 of 1972. in the alternative. It was pleaded that in any event ten years' period having been completed on 31.3.1980, he was entitled to the benefit of Section 39 of the Act. The notice dated 18.1.1975 was alleged to be bad in law.
(3.) THE suit of the Plaintiff was decreed on 21.5.1978 but the judgment and decree were set aside in Revision No. 14 of 1978 by the District Judge, Banda vide order dated 21.4.1979, and the case was remanded to the trial court. A finding was recorded in the said revision to the effect that opposite party No. 2 was not a subtenant of opposite party No. 1. Thus, the question of subletting alleged by the Plaintiff was negatived. It was not further agitated and, therefore, attained finality.;