- (1.) PRAKASH Krishna, J. This is tenant's revision under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Causes Court's Act. The only point mooted in this revision is that whether the premises in suit is not governed by U. P. Urban Building (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, herein after referred to as U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972, in view of Section 2 (1) (d) thereof.
(2.) SCC Suit No. 37 of 1984 was filed by the plaintiff/opposite party No. 2 for recovery of arrears of rent, damages and ejectment of the defendant/applicant from premises No. 123/36, (Old), New Number being 123/32 situate in Industrial Area, Suresh Bagh, Kanpur. The suit was instituted on the pleas inter alia that the plaintiff is the son of landlord of the industrial plot, wherein an industrial shed had been constructed. A portion of said plot/premises measuring 4500 sq. feet constructed area and 10,000 sq. feet open land was leased out to the defendant/tenant for a period of 12 years under the lease agreement dated 15th November, 1977 w. e. f. 1st December, 1971. The lease period having expired the tenant is liable for eviction. The defendant/tenant has refused to hand over the vacant possession of the demised premises, hence the suit. It was also pleaded that the provisions of U. P. Act 13 of 1972 are not applicable as the lease has come to end by afflux of time and the provisions of said Act are not applicable in view of Section 2 (1) (d) of the Act. The suit was contested on a number of pleas including that the provisions of U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 are applicable. However, the lease agreement dated 15th November, 1977 and the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties was not disputed. The plea that the entire arrears of rent etc. has been deposited under Section 20 (4) of the said Act and the defendant/tenant is not liable for eviction, was also raised. The Trial Court by its judgment and decree dated 2nd April, 1986 decreed the suit for recovery of arrears of rent and damages and eviction of the defendant/tenant. Feeling aggrieved against the aforesaid judgment and order, the present revision has been filed.
(3.) THE revision was heard by Hon'ble Mr. Justice B. N. Sapru, J. His Lordship after hearing the learned Counsel for the parties remitted the following issue to the trial Court to return the finding: "whether the plant or apparatus was leased out alongwith the building to the tenant/revisionist under the lease-deed between the parties". The above issue has been decided by the trial Court by its order dated 1st June, 1987 and it has been held that the defendant/tenant took on lease the disputed building alongwith the plant and apparatus under the lease-deed Ext. 1 (paper No. 45/c ). It follows that provisions of U. P. Act 13 of 1972 are not attracted. An objection has been filed on behalf of the tenant against the aforesaid finding on the ground that proper opportunity of hearing was not afforded to it by the trial Court while deciding the issue remitted to it as its Counsel was out of country and other Counsel could not appear as a short notice of hearing was given by the trial Court. The matter remained pending for a considerable period of time and was ultimately listed before me as in the mean time the Hon'ble Mr. Justice B. N. Sapru, J. has retired.;