- (1.) S. U. Khan, J. Heard learned Counsel for the tenant-petitioner and learned Counsel for the landlord-respondent No. 3, who has appeared through caveat.
(2.) LANDLORD-respondent No. 3 filed S. C. C. Suit No. 6 of 1996 against ten ant petitioner for his eviction from tenanted accommodation. It was stated in the plaint that even though initially plaintiff treated the defendant-peti tioner as licensee, however petitioner asserted that he was tenant, hence land lord also started treating him to be tenant @ Rs. 350/- per month rent (tenant had himself asserted that he was tenant @ Rs. 350/- per month rent ). Suit was filed after terminating the tenancy trough notice under section 106 of Transfer of Property Act. Property in dispute consists of to rooms, latrine, bathroom and joint verandah on the first floor situate in Shiv Shyam Market in front of Thana (Police Station) New Agra. It was also pleaded in the plaint that rent w. e. f. 1. 2. 1995 had not been paid. It was further pleaded that building was new construction, hence U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 was not applicable. The Trial Court/j. S. C. C, Agra decreed the suit through judgment and decree dated 28. 4. 2007. It was further directed that with effect from the date of filing of the suit, tenant should pay Rs. 1, 000/- per month as damages for use and occupation. Against the said judgment and decree, S. C. C. Revision No. 39 of 2007 was filed, which was dismissed on 15. 2. 2008 by A. D. J. , Court No. 6, Agra, hence this writ petition. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has not challenged the finding of non-applicability of the Act. Petitioner himself asserted that he was tenant and landlord also treated him to be tenant, hence argument of learned Counsel for the petitioner, that as at some point of time much before filing of the suit, landlord had treated the petitioner as licensee, hence suit was not maintainable before J. S. C. C. is not tenable. Both the Courts below found that notice was served. Pe titioner deposited the arrears of rent in the suit and sought benefit of section 20 (4) of the Act, which is quoted below : "20. Bar of suit for eviction of tenant except on specified grounds.- (1 ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (2 ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (3 ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (4) In any suit for eviction on the ground mentioned in Clause (a) of sub section (2), if at the first hearing of the suit the tenant unconditionally pays or tenders to the landlord or deposits in Court the entire amount of rent and damages for use and occupation of the building due from him (such damages for use and occupation being calculated at the same rate as rent) together with interest thereon at the rate of nine per cent per annum and the landlord's costs of the suit in respect thereof, after deducting therefrom any amount already deposited by the tenant under sub-section (1) of section 30, the Court may, in lieu of passing a decree for eviction on that ground, pass an order relieving the tenant against his liability for eviction on that ground: Provided that nothing in this sub-section shall apply in relation to a tenant who or any member of whose family has built or has otherwise ac quired in a vacant state, or has got vacated after acquisition, any residen tial building in the same city, municipality, notified area or town area. Explanation.- For the purposes of this sub-section - (a) the expression 'first' hearing' means the first date for any step or proceeding mentioned in the summons served on the defendant; (b) the expression 'cost of the suit' includes one-half of the amount of Counsel's fee taxable for a contested suit. "
(3.) COURTS below rightly held that as the Act was not applicable, hence there was no question to give benefit of the said sub-section to the tenant. Accordingly, there is no error in the impugned judgments, writ petition is therefore, dismissed.;