PRAFULLA C.PANT,J. - (1.) BY means of this writ petition, moved under Article 226 read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners (landlords) have sought writ in the nature of certiorariquashing the order dated 19.02.2000, passed by the revisional Court (Addl. District Judge, Dehradun), in S.C.C. Revi­sion No. 43 of 1996, whereby said Court has affirmed the judgment and decree passed by the Judge, Small Cause Court/Civil Judge (Junior Division), Dehradun, in S.C.C. Suit No. 85 of 1972, dismissing the suit of ejectment against the ten­ants.
(2.) HEARD learned Counsel for the parties and perused the affidavits, counter affidavit and rejoinder affidavit filed on behalf of the parties. Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiffs/petitioners are landlord of building situated in Village Daishwala, Doiwala, District Dehradun, in which the defendants/respondents No. 3 to 5 were tenants at the rate of Rs. 28A per month. The petitioners' case is that provisions of U.P. Urban Buildings (Regula­tion of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (for short U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972) were not applicable to said village, as such, the petitioners/plaintiffs served notice dated 19.09.1972 on the respondents/defendants, terminating their ten­ancy under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. But, the defen­dants failed to vacate the premises, therefore, the S.C.C. Suit No. 85 of 1972 was filed on 01.11.1972 before the Judge, Small Cause Court/Civil Judge (Jun­ior Division), Dehradun, under the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887 (as amended in the State of Uttar Pradesh), for ejectment of the defendants.
(3.) THE defendants contested the suit before the trial Court and filed their written statement. They challenged the validity of the notice allegedly served by the plaintiffs. It is further pleaded in the written statement that provisions of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972, have been made applicable in Doiwala w.e.f. 23.01.1973. It is further pleaded in the written statement filed on behalf of the defendants that before the present round of litigation, Suit No. 522 of 1964 was filed against the defendants, and in said suit it was held that provisions of U.P. Act No. 3 of 1947 i.e. United Provinces (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 1947, were applicable. When U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 came into force, it was made applicable to the municipal areas only. On its basis it is pleaded that before the provisions of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 were made applicable on 23.01.1973 to Doiwala area, provisions of U.P. Act No. 3 of 1947, remained in force. Consequently, it is pleaded by the defendants that they were not liable to be evicted and entitled to protec­tion under Section 20(4) of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972.;