- (1.) THIS writ petition has been filed with the prayer to quash the orders dated 08th December, 1988 passed by the opposite party No. 2/Additional Judge, Small Causes Lucknow in SCC Suit No. 370 of 1981and 23rd October, 1991 passed by opposite party No. 1/Vth Additional District Judge, Luc­know in SCC Revision No. 36 of 1989.
(2.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. From perusal of the record it reveals that this is a dispute between the landlord and the tenant. Both original landlord i.e. respondent No. 3 and tenant/petitioner have died during the pendency of the writ petition and their heirs have been substituted. Decree for evic­tion was sought on three grounds by the land­lord that U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') is not applicable on the building in dispute and the defendant/tenant has committed default in payment of the rent and he also use the building for other purposes than that of it was let out. By the concurrent finding, both the courts below held that provisions of the Act No. 13 of 1972 are applicable on the building in dispute. Suit of the plaintiff was also not decreed by both the courts below on the ground of default com­mitted by the tenant for payment of the rent because on the date of first hearing in the suit all the dues i.e. cost of the suit, interest on the amount, due rent and mesne profit etc. were deposited in the SCC suit under Sec­tion 20 (d) of the Act and it was further held that tenant and his family members were not having any other accommodation in their pos­session in the area of Nagar Nigam, Lucknow so it was held that the tenant is not liable for ejectment on these two grounds. Finding of the trial court were not challenged by the land­lord by filing the revision. After the decision of the revisional court also he did not file any writ petition before this Court challenging the above concurrent findings of both the courts below. At the time of final arguments in the writ petition, learned counsel for the respon­dent Nos. 3 and 4 again has not challenged the findings of both the courts as above. In counter affidavit of respondent also in paragraph 21, it was stated that impugned order passed by the opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 are perfectly valid and in accordance with law. They did not suf­fer from any legal infirmity. From the above, it is clear that these findings of both the courts below are final.
(3.) SUIT of the plaintiff for ejectment of the defendant-tenant was decreed only on the ground of inconsistent user of the building by the tenant without prior permission in writ­ing from the landlord.;