Pankaj Mithal, J. - (1.) HEARD Sri Hari Om Yadav, learned Counsel for the petitioner. No one appears for the respondents despite revision of the list.
(2.) PETITIONER has preferred this writ petition against the judgment and order dated 1.9.2007 passed by the Revisional Court. The Court of first instance had decreed the suit of the petitioner but the decree has been set aside by the Revisional Court by extending the benefit of section 114 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (hereafter referred to as the T.P. Act).
(3.) PETITIONER is a landlord whereas respondents are tenants. Petitioner instituted a small causes Court suit for arrears of rent and eviction against the respondents after terminating their tenancy vide notice dated 21.5.09 under section 106 of the T.P. Act - - (i) The Court of first instance in decreeing the suit held that the provisions of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) are not applicable to the building as it had been constructed after 26th April, 1985; (ii) The tenants have defaulted in the payment of rent w.e.f. 1.2.2004; and (iii) Though the tenants have deposited the entire arrears of rent expenses etc. on or before the first date of hearing of the suit for the purposes of claiming benefit of section 20(4) of Act, the said benefit is not available as the Act is not applicable.;