S.U. Khan, J. - (1.) This is tenant's writ petition arising out of SCC suit No. 305 of 1984 filed by landlord-respondent No. 3 Bachhan Babu for eviction on the ground of default and recovery of arrears of rent. Plaintiff filed copy of sale deed dated 31.10.1981 through which Ashok Kumar son of tenant-petitioner had purchased an accommodation in the same City. None of the parties led any oral evidence before the trial court and formal proof of documents filed by each of the parties was waived by the other party. Trial court/JSCC, Aligarh held that tenant had deposited the entire requisite amount of rent, interest and cost of the suit on the first date of hearing however, he was not entitled to the benefit of Section 20(4) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 by virtue of its proviso. According to the said proviso a tenant who or any member of whose family has acquired in a vacant state any residential building in the same city then he shall not be entitled to benefit of Section 20(4) of the Act. The tenant asserted that the accommodation purchased by his son was commercial in nature and not residential. Tenant further pleaded that the said accommodation was purchased for business purpose and was actually being used since its purchase for business purpose.
(2.) Prior to the suit giving rise to the instant writ petition another similar suit had been filed by the landlord against the tenant being SCC suit No. 43 of 1982. The said suit was dismissed on the ground that notice of termination of tenancy and demand of rent was not found served. However it appears that in the earlier suit it was held that defendant was not entitled to the benefit of Section 20(4) of the Act as his son had acquired a residential house.
(3.) The trial court decreed the instant suit for eviction and recovery of arrears of rent through judgment and decree dated 11.12.1985. Trial court held that even though tenant had fully complied with the provisions of Section 20(4) of the Act however, he was not entitled to the protection of the said sub-section as his son had acquired a residential house in the same city hence proviso to the said Sub-section was squarely attracted. Against the said judgment and decree tenant-petitioner filed SCC revision No. 4 of 1986. IIIrd A.D.J., Aligarh through judgment and order dated 20.8.1986 dismissed the revision hence this writ petition.;