- (1.) R. H. Zaidi, J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.
(2.) PRESENT petition arises out S. CC. suit filed by respondent Nos. 3 to 5, landlords, against the petitioner tenant for ejectment and recovery of rent and is directed against the order passed by respon dent No. 1 allowing the revision and remanding the case for a decision afresh to the trial court vide its order dated 31. 3. 1995. The suit filed by the landlords with the allegation that the provisions of U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, (U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972) for the short 'the Act' had no ap plication over the shop in dispute and that the petitioner tenant also committed default in payment of rent, therefore, his tenancy was terminated in accordance with law but the petitioner did not vacate the shop in dispute, he was, therefore, liable to ejectment from the same. The suit was contested by the defen dant-petitioner, who had denied the claim of respondent Nos. 3 to 5 landlords, and pleaded that the provisions of the Act were fully applicable over the shop in dispute and that he has deposited the requisite amount on the first date of hearing, he was, there fore entitled to the benefit of sub-section (4) of Section 20 of the Act. Trial court was pleased to hold that the provisions of the Act were applicable over the shop in dis pute. The petitioner committed default in payment of rent but since the requisite amount was deposited by him on the first date of hearing, therefore, he was entitled to the benefit of sub-section (4) of Section 20 of the Act. Having recorded the said find ings the suit was decreed only for recovery of rent and was dismissed for the relief of eject ment against the petitioner by its judgment and decree dated 26. 3. 1991.
(3.) AGGRIEVED by the judgment and decree passed by the trial court the landlords filed revision under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Causes Court Act before the court below. The court below set aside the findings recorded by the trial court on issue No. 1 and it was held that the provisions of the Act were not applicable over the shop in dispute. The tenancy of the petitioner having been terminated in ac cordance with law. He was, therefore, liable to be ejected from the shop in dispute. The revision was allowed and the suit was decreed as prayed for by the plaintiff. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner vehemently submitted that the findings recorded by the Courts below were based only on the decision of this Court in Adesh Kumar Gupta v. Kanpur Vidya Mandir Society, 1990 (1) ARC 14 which was not binding upon the petitioner as he was not a party to it. The judgment and order passed by the Courts below is, therefore, liable to be set aside.;