- (1.) S. R. Singh, J. Present petition plods it way to this Court out of the suit instituted for eviction from the premises in dispute namely, the first floor of house No. 110/93 situate in Ram Krishna Nagar, Kanpur Nagar, comprising two rooms, kitchen, bathroom and latrine and recovery of arrears of rent, damages and mesne profits.
(2.) THE accommodation in question was tenanted by the petitioner on a monthly rent of Rs. 150/ -. THE petitioner was remiss in payment of rent since 9. 6. 1993 and as a result thereof, his tenancy came to be determined by means of notice dated 7. 6. 1983 and suit for the aforestated reliefs was instituted on 27. 2. 1984. THE petitioner candidly admitted the tenancy. He however, alleged that the rent of the accommodation was Rs. 757-and not Rs. 150/-as set out in the plaint and further that the building in question was constructed in the year 1972 and not in the year 1975 as alleged in the plaint and, therefore, it came within the purview of the U. P. Urban Building (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act 13 of 1972. Invalidity of notice was also pleaded by the petitioner in his written statement on the ground that the boundary of the accommodation was not delineated in the notice. The suit was decreed on 19. 12. 1988. The learned Judge Small Causes Court deduced that the building in question was constructed in the year 1975 and that the suit was filed within the 'exemption' period of 10 years. It was also held that the monthly rent was Rs. 150/-and that the defendant was not entitled to the benefits of section 39 of the U. P. Act 13 of 1972 which Act was held not applicable to the building in question. The notice under section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act was also adjudge to be valid. The defendant preferred revision under section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Court Act. The revisional court, while lending affirmance to the findings recorded by the trial court on other issues, set aside the judgment and order dated 19. 12. 1988 and remitted the matter to the trial court for consideration of two issues (i) whether the defendant petitioner was entitled to the benefits of section 20 (4) of the U. P. Act 13 of 1972; and (ii) Whether the notice was invalid.
(3.) THE trial court, after reconsideration, maintained that since U. P. Act 13 of 1972 itself was not applicable, the defendant petitioner would not derive benefit of section 20 (4) of the said Act and further that the notice under section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act did not suffer from the taint of any infirmity in that there was no ambiguity in respect of tenanted accommodation and further that the fenancy of the petitioner in its entirety was determined and it was not a case of determination in tenancy in respect of only a part of tenanted accommodation. On these findings, the trial court again decreed the suit on 28. 7. 95 which judgment has been countenanced in approboation by the 4th Addl. District Judge, Kanpur, who dismissed the revision vide judgment dated 9. 10. 96. Sri S. P. Mehrotra, counsel appearing for the petitioner vehemently urged that on expiration of the exemption period of 10 years during the pendency of the suit, the building would fall within the purview of U. P. Act 13 of 1972 and therefore, Section 20 (4) of the said Act would be attracted. Sri Yasharth, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-landlords urged that the rights of the parties would be governed by the law in force on the date of institution of the suit and not by the provisions of the U. P. Act 13 of 1972, which became applicable to the building in question, on expiration of exemption period of 10 years during the pendency of the suit.;