S.K. Phaujdar, J. - (1.) THIS revision under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act is directed against the judgment and decree dated 31.7.1996 recorded by the XVth Additional District Judge, Meerut, exercising Small Causes Court's power in S.C.C. Suit No. 12 of 1994. The suit in question was initiated by the plaintiff -caveator, V.K. Aggarwal, for arrears of rent and eviction of the tenant -defendant No. 1, from the premises of the plaintiff. The monthly rate of rent was more than Rs. 5,000 and the suit did not fall within the purview of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972. It was also a new construction assessed for the first time in 1988 and in that light also it was not to be guided by the provisions of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972. It was stated that a notice terminating the tenancy was served upon the tenant Board but the premises were not vacated and only thereafter the suit was filed for eviction and arrears of rent, as aforesaid.
(2.) THE tenant contested the suit and accepted the plaintiff to be the landlord. It also accepted the monthly tenancy as well as the rate of rent. Objection was taken regarding the notice. It was stated that the suit was not maintainable due to failure on the part of the plaintiff to terminate the tenancy by a valid notice. The trial Court was of the view that the provisions of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 were not applicable in this and the notice served on the defendant was also a valid one and, accordingly, the suit was decreed, directing eviction and payment of rent from 1.4.1994 and payment of compensation for wrongful use since the termination of tenancy at the rate of rent payable every month.
(3.) THE revision application has been presented on the ground of jurisdiction and notice as raised before the Court below. It was argued that the burden of proving date of construction of the building lay on the plaintiff and in the absence of any evidence by the plaintiff, the Court should have held that it was an old building and as such it came very much within the purview of Act No. 13 of 1972. It was further alleged that the exclusion of the application of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 on the rate of rent was introduced subsequent to the creation of the tenancy and, as such, the provisions could not be applicable to the present case and the case would come under the purview of the said Act. It was contended on behalf of the respondent -caveator that this exclusion clause would have retrospective effect to cover even the tenancies created prior to the introduction of Section 2(g) under the Act No. 13 of 1972.;