S. D. Agarwala, J. - (1.) THIS is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India arising out of suit No. 1137 of 1980 filed in the court of Judge Small Causes, Kanpur for ejectment and arrears of rent and damages for use and occupation by the respondent No. 2 Mushtaq Ahmad against the petitioner, Badiuzzaman. The landlord, respondent No. 3 sent a notice of demand and termination of the tenancy of the petitioner which was alleged to be dated 1st of February, 1980. By this notice arrears of rent for the period of 1st August, 1979 to 31st March, 1980 were demanded. The suit had been filed on the allegations that the property in dispute did not come under the purview of the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, U. P. Act XIII of 1972, hereinafter referred to as the Act.
(2.) THE suit was contested by the petitioner tenant on the ground that the building in dispute was covered by the provisions of the Act. THE service and the validity of the notice terminating his tenancy was also questioned. It was also urged that the tenant was not a defaulter in the eye of law and ultimately it was claimed that he was entitled to the benefit of Section 39 of the Act. The trial court after examining the evidence on the record came to the conclusion that the construction of the building in question was completed on April 1, 1973 and as such it came within the operation of the Act on completion of ten years, i. e. on 1-4-1983. The trial court further found that the petitioner-tenant had not deposited the amount as required by Section 39 of the Act and as such he was not entitled to the benefit of Section 39 of the Act. In regard to the validity of the notice the trial court found the notice to be valid. It also found that the notice was duly served on the tenant. In view of the above findings the trial court decreed the suit by judgment dated 11th January, 1985. Aggrieved by the said decision the petitioner filed a revision under Section 25 of the Small Causes Courts Act. The revision was dismissed by the revisional court on 10th March, 1986. The revisional court affirmed the finding recorded by the trial court. After the revisional court passsed the order dismissing the revision, the petitioner moved an application for review of the judgment dated 10th March, 1986. This review application has also been dismissed by an order dated 22-3-1986. The petitioner has now challenged all the three orders dated 11th January, 1985, 10th March, 1986 and 22nd March, 1986 by means of tne present petition.
(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the amount deposited by the petitioner under Section 17 of the Provincial Small Causes Courts Act was liable to be adjusted towards the amount to be deposited under Section 39 of the Act and as such the petitioner was entitled to the benefit of Section 39 of the Act. The view to the contrary taken by the courts below is manifestly erroneous.;