Ravi S. Dhavan, J. - (1.) The petitioner is a tenant who has come to this court by this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution after having been unsuccessful when the landlord brought his suit for his eviction before the Judge, Small Causes.
(2.) The arrears of rent is not in issue. The question before the courts below was whether the U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972 was applicable to the accommodation which the petitioner occupies. The landlord contended that regard being had to the fact that the accommodation had been totally reconstructed between the period 1979-80, it was such a building which did not come within the purview of the Act. The petitioner resisted the proposition that the U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972 did not apply, unsuccessfully as on the evidence which was produced before the Trial Court, a finding was returned to the effect that the aforesaid Act did not apply and the suit had been rightly brought by the landlord. The landlord had produce evidence to fortify his pleas that the building had been totally reconstructed during the period 1979-80 and on the evidence on record the tenant could not rebut the pleas of the landlord. The District Judge in revision after examining the pleas of the parties and the evidence as was on record affirmed the decision of the Judge, Small Causes by a judgment of 4th April, 1987, District Bijnor, dismissed the revision of the tenant.
(3.) The tenant attempted to make an issue out of the fact that the eviction which is being sought is from an accommodation which is not identifiable. The tenant will not be permitted to hide behind this plea as the contract of tenancy which he had with the landlord has been determined.;