Sibghat Ullah Khan, J. - (1.) SRI H.P. Dubey learned Counsel has filed Vakalatnama on behalf of all the proposed legal representatives of respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4. One Vakalatnama on behalf of some of the legal representatives has been filed today by Sri H.P. Dubey learned Counsel. Accordingly, all the three substitution applications are allowed after condoning the delay in filing said substitution applications on payment of Rs. 1000/ - as cost, which shall be paid within four months to the learned Counsel for respondent in this writ petition.
(2.) HEARD learned Counsel for the parties. This is tenant's writ petition arising out of SCC Suit No. 5 of 1980 filed by landlord respondents against him for eviction and recovery of arrears of rent on the ground that when the suit was filed (i.e. on 11.4.1980) U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 was not applicable to the building in dispute (a shop) as it was constructed within 10 years there from. It was also pleaded in the plaint that tenant was defaulter and had made material alteration in the tenanted building in dispute. JSCC/Munsif Hawali, Saharanpur decided all the three questions in favour of the tenant and dismissed the suit through judgment and decree dated 14.12.1981. Against the said judgment and decree landlord filed SCC Revision No. 345 of 1982.
(3.) REVISIONAL Court/I A.D.J. Saharanpur decided (allowed) the revision on 25.2.1988. Revisional Court maintained the findings of the Trial Court in respect of default and material alteration, which had been recorded in favour of the tenant. However, Revisional Court differed with the Trial Court in respect of date of construction. Trial Court had held that shop in dispute had been constructed 13 or 14 years before filing of the suit however Revisional Court held that the building was constructed in 1971 when it was let out to the petitioner (1.6.1971). The Revisional Court therefore, decreed the suit for eviction on the ground that tenancy of the tenant had been determined through notice under section 106 T.P. Act and U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 was not applicable to the building in dispute. This writ petition by the tenant is directed against the aforesaid judgment and order passed by the Revisional Court dated 25.2.1988.;