- (1.) SUDHIR Narain, J. The petitioner seeks writ of certiorari quashing the judg ment dated 24-1-1991 passed by respondent No. 1.
(2.) THE facts, in brief, are that the petitioner is owner and landlord of the shop in question situate at Maqbara Road, Guiyan Bagh, Moradabad. Respondent No. 2 was its tenant. THE petitioner filed S. C. C. Suit No. 98 of 1983 against respondent No. 2 on the allegation that rent of the shop in question was Rs. 60/- per month. It was a new construction and was assessed for the first time in 1978 and the provisions of U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972 were not applicable. THE tenant failed to pay arrears of rent since 1-9-1980. Anoticedated21-3-1983 was sent to respondent No. 2 demanding arrears of rent and terminating his tenancy but the same was not complied with. Respondent No. 2 contested the suit by filing a written statement. He alleged that the rate of rent was Rs. 20/- per month and not Rs. 60/- per month. The building in question was an old construction and provisions of U. P. Actno. XIII of 1972 were applicable. He never committed any default in payment of rent. The Judge Small Causes Court recorded a finding that the building was not old construction and the provisions of Act No. XIII of 1972 were not applicable. The rate of rent was Rs. 60/- per month. The tenant committed default in payment of ar rears of rent. The trial Court decreed the suit on 9-2-1990. The tenant- respondent No. 2 filed revision against the said order. Respondent No. 1 held that provisions of Act No. XIII of 1972 were not applicable as it was a new construction. As regards the rate of rent it held that the rent of the shop in question was Rs. 20/- per month and not Rs. 60/- per month as alleged by the plain tiff. The notice was held to be invalid for the reason that the petitioner had demanded higher rate of rent. The suit of the plaintiff was dismissed by the impugned order dated 24-1- 1991.
(3.) I have heard Sri Ravi Kiran Jain, Senior Advocate, for the petitioner and Sri R. P. Goyal, Senior Advocate, for respon dent No. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that respondent No. 1 was not justified in reversing the finding of the Judge Small Causes Court and even assum ing the rate of rent was at Rs. 20/- per month, it acted illegally in holding that the notice terminating the tenancy sent to respondent No. 2 was invalid only for the reason that the plaintiff-petitioner had demanded rent at a higher rate. Respondent No. 1 has affirmed the finding of the Judge Small Causes Court that provision of U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972 are not applicable to the shop in question as it was a new con struction.;