- (1.) R. H. Zaidi. J. By means of the present petition under article 226 of the Constitution of India, Petitioner Prays for issuance of a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the judgment and order dated 28. 10. 75 Passed by respondent No. 2 and order dated 16-4-1993, Passed by the respondent No1.
(2.) THE relevant facts giving rise to the present petition, are that the respondent No. 3 filed a suit for ejectment and recovery of arrears of rent with the allegations that the petititoner was tenant in the shop in dispute since 1963 at the monthly rent of Rs. 30/ -. THE petitioner fell in arrears of rent for more than five months, therefore, a notice of demand and termination of tenancy was served upon him calling upon to pay the arrears of rent within thirty days of the receipt. It was also stated that the shop was counstructed in the year 1963, therefore, the provisions of U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972 for short the Act, had no application in the present case. The suit was contested by the petitioner, pleading that the plaintiff-respondent No. 3 refused to receive the rent, therefore, the same was sent to him by money order. Even the money order was refused by the landlord, therefore, the rent of the shop in dispute was deposited in the Court under Section 30 of the Act. No notice of demand or termination of tenancy was ever served upon him. The relationship of the landlord and tenant between the par ties was also denied. The suit was, therefore, liable to be dismissed. It appears that during the pendency of the suit an application (15/ga) dated 14. 8. 72, was filed by the petitioner stating that the rent from 19-3-70 to 19-2-72 was deposited in the Court and he was ready to pay the balance arrears of rent with 9% interest with effect from 18-3-72 to 18-8-72 and a tender for depositing an amount of Rs. 338/- was also submitted along with the said application claiming the benefit of Section 39/40 of the Act.
(3.) THE trial Court after considering the material on the record held that the shop in dispute was constructed in the year 1963, Section 39 of the Act had no application in the present case, allotment of the shop under the Act was not necessary, there ex isted the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties, and notice of demand and termination of tenancy was served upon the defendant- petitioner, but he did not pay the rent within thirty days of the receipt of the notice. Having recorded the said find ings, the trial Court decreed the suit vide judgement and decree dated 28. 10. 74. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court, petitioner preferred a revision under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, but the same was also dismissed on 26-7-75. There after, petitioner challenged the validity of the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 10036 of 1979, which was allowed by this Court and the case was remanded to the revisional Court for decision afresh of the issues framed by this Court vide its judgment and order dated 12-8-85.;