SHISHIR KUMAR,J. - (1.) HEARD Sri Avinash Swaroop, learned counsel for petitioner and Sri Pankaj Agarwal, Advocate holding brief of Sri M. K. Gupta, learned counsel for respondents.
(2.) THIS writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 23.2.1994 by which revision filed by respondent-landlord has been allowed. The facts arising out of writ petition are that landlord filed a suit on 16.1.1989 for ejectment against petitioner before Judge, Small Causes Court, which was registered as Suit No.5 of 1989. The respondent-landlord's case was in the plaint that said building was constructed in the year 1979, therefore, Act No.13 of 1972 is not applicable. Various evidences were placed before the Court by the plaintiff. The Judge, Small Causes Court after considering the claim of parties and on the basis of pleading a finding has been recorded that construction of the building is in the year 1979. However, dismissing the suit on the ground that as ten years have been completed, therefore, Section 2 Sub Clause 2 of the Act No.13 of 1972 became applicable and there is no ground for ejectment under Section 20 of the Act. Hence, the suit is dismissed. Respondent-landlord aggrieved by order passed by Judge, Small Cause Court filed a revision assailing the fact that Act No.13 of 1972 is not applicable in view of relevant records, therefore, finding recorded by Judge, Small Causes Court should be set aside and revision be allowed. The Revisional Court vide its order dated 23.3.1994 allowed the revision and decreed the suit.
(3.) SRI Avinash Swaroop, learned counsel appearing for petitioner submits that finding recorded by Revisional Court regarding date of construction is not correct because from various records, it was proved that prior to 1979, building in question was in existence and as respondent has constructed the shop in question prior to 1978, and computation was made, therefore, the Revisional Court has clearly ignored various documents filed thereon. Various documents have been filed by petitioner with supplementary affidavit before this Court. He has placed reliance upon a judgement of the Apex Court reported in (2001) 5 Supreme Court Cases, 705, Deena Nath Vs. Pooran Lal. Placing reliance upon aforesaid judgement learned counsel for petitioner submits that if in recording a finding the court does not bear in mind the statutory mandate, such finding would not be a mere finding of fact. Such erroneous finding illegally arrived at, would be vitiated the entire judgement. Further, it has been submitted that finding to this effect that date of assessment is 1979, is based on no evidence.;