- (1.) PRAFULLA C. Pant, J. This revision, preferred under Sec tion 25 of Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887, is directed against orders dated 03-09-2005 and 30-09-2005 passed by Judge Small Cause Court/a. D. J. /ii F. T. C. Nainital, in S. C. C. suit No. 3 of 1995.
(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that the Plaintiff/respondent Shri Ghananand Kandpal (since deceased) instituted a suit for ejectment and re covery of arrears of rent and damages against the revisionist - Abbas Ali, al leging that the building in question be ing a new construction, is not covered under U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972. It is further pleaded by the plain tiff that the defendant/revisionist was tenant of the building in question on rent at the rate of Rs. 325/- per month and tenancy was terminated by serving him notice under Section 106 of Trans fer of Property Act, 1882. The service of notice was made on 03-01-1995 and thirty days thereafter the tenancy stood terminated. It appears that the original plaintiff Ghananand Kandpal died dur ing the pendency of suit and his heirs were substituted. However, one of his heirs who was plaintiff No. 1/3 namely Subhash Kandpal was directed to be transposed as defendant No. 2 on the ground that he was in collusion of the tenant and acting against the interest of the landlords. The suit is being contested by the tenant/defendant before the trial court for last more than ten years as the suit was instituted in the year 1995. The impugned order dated 03-09-2005 shows that the defendant has still not filed written statement and he was di rected to file the written statement by 06:09-2005. The impugned order dated 30-09-2005 shows that the de fendant insisted by moving an applica tion 106-C with his application as to protection under Section 20 (4) of U. P. Act 13 of 1972 read with Section 39 of the Act, be disposed of. By the im pugned order dated 30-09-2005, the trial court, as it did not find any force in application 106 C, rejected the same. Aggrieved by this order, the defendant has filed this revision. I heard learned counsel for the parties.
(3.) SECTION 20 (4) of U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 protects the tenant against whom suit is instituted on the ground in default of payment of rent, eviction provided he uncondition ally deposits at first hearing of the suit, the entire amount of the rent and dam ages together with interest at the rate of 9% per annum and the landlord's cost of the suit. However, this provision would be applicable only when the aforesaid Act is applicable to the building. In para-8 of the affidavit dated 04-12-2005, filed by the revisionist be fore this Court, the defendant has admitted that the suit was instituted prior to the aforesaid Act became applicable to the building in question. Para-8 of the affidavit, filed by the revisionist (de fendant) before this Court reads as un der: "that ultimately the defendant (now petitioner) filed an application No. 106/ga seeking protection and ben efit of the provisions of sub-section (4) of section 20 read with section 39 of U. P. Act No.-13 of 1972 on the ground that admittedly the premises in suit including the building in ques tion has ipso-facto come within the purview, operation and enforcement of U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972, on ac count of completing 10 years on 31-03-1995, just after filing the suit in or about 15-02-1995, according to law. A copy of said application no. 106/ga is annexed herewith marked as Annexure No.-2 to this revision petition. " The aforementioned para clearly in dicates that on the date of institution of suit in question, U. P. Act 13 of 1972 was not applicable to the premises in question. Section-39 of the aforesaid Act provides that provisions of the Act are applicable only to the pending suits under the old Act. In Satya Narayan V. lll Addl. District Judge 1982 Allahabad Rent Cases Pg. 392, it has been clari fied that in order to attract Section 39 of the Act, the suit must be pending on the date of commencement of the Act i. e. on 15-07- 1972. Admittedly, the suit was instituted on 15-02-1995 and not prior to 15-07-1972. As such, in the opinion of this Court, learned trial court has rightly found that the defendant/re visionist is not entitled to the benefit of sub-section (4) of section 20 read with section 39 of U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Evic tion) Act, 1972.;