- (1.) PRAKASH Krishna, J. This is an unfortunate litigation.
(2.) THIS matter has come up before this Court third time in the present writ petition and travelled to the Apex Court twice. A simple suit for ejectment being SCC Suit No. 8 of 1978 was filed by the contesting respondents No. 3 and 4 alongwith their father against the petitioner after determination of tenancy, on the allegation that provisions of U. P Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rentand Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as Act No. 13 of 1972) is not applicable to the shop in question being a 'new construction'. Respondents No. 3 and 4 alongwith their father Mohdlsha Khan instituted SCC Suit No. 8 of 1978 against the present petitioner, who is admittedly a tenant, in the Court of Judge Small Causes for ejectment on the allegations that the petitioner who is a tenant on monthly rent of Rs. 100/- of a newly constructed shop at Patel Nagar, District Gonda, has failed to pay the rent since November 1977 in spite of notice of demand and determination of tenancy. In the suit plain tiffs claimed a decree for eviction and possession as also Rs. 300/- towards arrears of rent alongwith usual relief of cost etc.
(3.) IT was further pleaded that the building in question is a newly constructed building and was constructed about eight years before and as such the provisions of U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 are not applicable. The said shop originally belongs to Mohd. Isha (Plaintiff No. 3), the father of the plaintiffs No. 1 and 2 who by means of sale deed dated 20. 7. 1976 sold it to his sons plaintiffs No. 1 and 2 and thus they have become its owner and landlord. IT was let out to the defendant tenant with effect from 1. 10. 1973 with the clear stipulation that as an when the shop is needed by the landlord, the tenant would vacate it after the service of a month's notice. The tenancy was determined under Section 106 of the Transfer of Prop erty Act by serving a notice dated 2. 1. 1978 under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, which was served on 4. 1. 1978. The tenancy has been determined after 30 days of the receipt of the notice. The suit was contested mainly on the ground that there is no arrears of rent and that the shop in question is a old construction and was constructed about 20 years before and as such the provi sions of U. P Act No. 13 of 1972 are applicable. The relation of landlord and tenant between the parties and the rate of rent were, not disputed. The parties led evidence in support of their respective cases by producing oral and documentary evidence. The Trial Court vide its judgement and decree dated 16. 2. 1980 decreed the suit after recording a finding that the shop in ques tion is a "new construction" and was constructed in the year 1970 which is evi dent from the assessment list of the local authority being papers No. 128 and 129 as also admitted by the defendant-tenant through the rent note, being paper No. 124. It rejected the tenant's contention that in view of the judgement of the Apex Court in Ratan Lal Singhalv. Smt. Marutidevi, 1979 ARC 507 (SC), the provisions of U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 is applicable on the ground that the shop in question was constructed in the year 1970 and as such the provisions of the said Act are not applicable. This judgement and decree of the Trial Court was subject matter of Civil Revision No. 46 of 1980, at the instance of the tenant before the revisional Court. The revisional Court vide its judgement and order dated 31. 7. 1980 vacated the decree of the Trial Court and dismissed the suit. It was of the view that in view of the fact that the shop in question was constructed in the year 1970, i. e. before the commencement of U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 a fact which was not disputed before it, the dicta as laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Ratan Lal Singhal (supra) would be attracted and the provisions of U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 will be applicable to all such buildings, which were in existence on or before 15. 7. 1972, the day on which the U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 commenced. It rejected the contention of the landlord that the ten years holiday period from the date of construction that is 1970 having not been expired since the suit was filed in the year 1978, the provisions of U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 will not be applicable. First round of litigation:;