- (1.) A. K. Banerji, J. The aforesaid revision under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 11-11-1992 passed by the Additional District Judge (Special Judge), Rampur in J. S. C. Suit No. 11 of 1982.
(2.) THE facts in brief are that the defendant is a tenant of a shop in Bazar Safdarganj, Rampur, of which the plaintiff is the landlord. THE plaintiff had initially filed Suit No. 175 of 1971 against the defendant which was decreed by the trial Court on 24- 3-1972. Civil Appeal No. 9 of 1972 was preferred against the said decree by the tenant. During the pendenty of the appeal, a compromise was arrived at between the parties and it was agreed that the plaintiff would let out the shop to the defendant for a period of 10 years beginning from 1-4-1972 at a monthly rent of Rs. 400 and the plaintiff would construct a room on the first floor and after the construction of the room, it would be let out to the defendant at a monthly rent of Rs. 100. It was also agreed that after the expiry of 10 years, if the lessee so desired a new lease could be executed for a period of 5 years on the terms mutually agreed between the parties. THE compromise was reduced to writing and signed by the parties and filed before the Court. THE District Judge decided the appeal in terms of the compromise and it was ordered that the compromise would form part of the decree. A lease deed was executed thereafter by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff based on the compromise and it was mentioned therein that the same was being executed in terms of the compromise. It contained all the said terms mentioned in the compromise deed. It is not disputed that in pursuance of the said agreement the plaintiff constructed a room on the first floor and let it out to the defendant at a monthly rent of Rs. 100. Thus, the entire shop came into the tenancy of the defendant at Rs. 500 per month. Before the expiry of the period of 10 years, the parties entered into correspondence regarding the terms for a fresh lease for another 5 years. However, as the terms could not be mutually settled, the plaintiff sent a registered notice dated 24-2-1982 to the defendant terminating the tenancy and requiring the defendant to hand over the vacant possession to the plaintiff on completion of period of tenancy i. e. 31-3-1982 on the expiry of 30 days from the service of notice. Since, the defendant did not comply with the same, the plaintiff filed suit No. 11 of 1982 before the Small Cause Court, Rampur praying for a decree of ejectment against the defendant and recovery of damage for use and occupation amounting to Rs. 3050 @ Rs. 50 per day from 1-4-1982 to 31-5-1982 and pendente liteand further damages @ Rs. 500 per day from 1-6-1992 till the ejectment. The suit was contested by the defendant by filing a written statement. The trial Court framed the points for determination and on a consideration of the evidence on record decreed the suit for ejectment and recovery of Rs. 1000 with proportionate costs and pendente liteand future damages @ Rs. 500 per month. Aggrieved against the said decree, the defendant has filed the present revision before this Court.
(3.) I have heard Sri Radhey Shyam and Sri R. S. Saxena, learned Counsel for the defendant-applicant and Sri A. S. Saran, learned Counsel for the plaintiff opposite party. I have also perused the record of this case. The main contention of the learned Counsel for the defendant- applicant is that the plaintiff's suit was barred by Section 20 (1) of the Act and Court below has manifestly erred in decreeing the suit by applying the proviso to Section 20 (1) of the Act. It has been contended that the Civil Appeal 9 of 1972 was decided in terms of compromise videthe order dated 9- 4-1972 and a lease deed was executed on 26-6-1972, whereby, the defendant's tenancy was for a fixed term of 10 years initially with an option of renewal of 5 years. The U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 (the 'act' in short) was enforced w. e. f. 15-7-1972 and the Act being prospective in nature, the terms of the lease deed 26-6- 1972 could not be looked into and the status of the defendant was as a month to month tenant. Since none of the grounds mentioned under Section 20 (2) of the Act was made out against the defendant, the plaintiff's suit was not maintainable. In support of his submissions, the learned Counsel for the applicant has placed reliance upon a decision of this Court in the case of Shri Gandhi Ashram, Meerutv. Shri Ram Gupta,1983 (1) ARC 366.;