- (1.) S. U. Khan, J. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.
(2.) THIS is landlord's writ petition. Landlord filed S. C. C. Suit No. 32 of 1995 against original tenant respondent No. 2 Desh Raj, since deceased and sur vived by legal representatives. The suit was filed on 19. 5. 1995. Tenancy had been terminated before filing of the suit. It was pleaded by the plaintiff that U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 was not applicable upon the building in dispute as it belonged to a waqf and by virtue of section 2 (1) (bbb) of the Act inserted by U. P. Act No. 5 of 1995 w. e. f. 26. 9. 1994. Act was not applicable to on any building belonging to or vested in a waqf including a waqf-allal-aulad. Property in dispute is a shop, rent of which is Rs. 600/- per month. J. S. C. C. , Bijnor accepted the contention of the landlord and decreed the suit through judgment and decree dated 27. 1. 1998. Against the said judgment and decree, tenant-respondent No. 2 filed S. C. C. Revision No. 30 of 1998. The revision was allowed by 1st Additional District Judge, Bijnor through judgment and order dated 29. 8. 1998. Revisional Court set aside the de cree passed by the Trial Court and dismissed the suit, hence this writ petition. Trial Court had wrongly held that the suit was liable to be decreed on the ground of default, even according to the notice of demand, only one month's rent was due when notice was given. Accordingly, Lower Revisional Court rightly reversed the said finding of the Trial Court. In Para-10, Revisional Court further held that : "it is concluded that waqf once created shall continue to be remained waqf it cannot change its character even, if waqf property is not taken use of for the purpose, the waqf was created. In the instant case as evident from the evidence on record that Dr. Ziyaul Haq created Waqf-Allal-Aulad and his own children were made entitled to appoint as Mutwalli and also the beneficiary. "
(3.) EVEN after recording the above findings, the Revisional Court allowed the revision on a very strange ground. Notice of termination of tenancy and de mand of rent had been given on 6. 12. 1994 in which it was stated that rent since 1. 11. 1994 had not been paid. Revisional Court held that notice was not legal as tenant was not defaulter, when it was given. If Rent Control Act does not apply, then tenant is liable to eviction simply after termination of tenancy. Default or no default is wholly immate rial. Revisional Court itself held that building in dispute belonged to waqf-allal-aulad and was beyond the purview of U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972. Thereafter, there was absolutely no sense in holding that the notice of termination of ten ancy was invalid on the ground that tenant was not defaulter when notice was given. The view taken by the Lower Revisional Court is quite strange and ut terly untenable. Even if Rent Control Act applies and in the notice wrong period of default and wrong rate of rent is mentioned, still notice does not become in valid vide Full Bench authority of Gokaran Singh v. 1st Additional District and Sessions Judge, Hardoi and others. 2000 (40) ALR 405 (FB);