PRAKASH KRISHNA,J. - (1.) THIS is landlord's petition. It arises out of S.C.C. Suit No. 3 of 1996 filed against the respondent tenant for recovery of ar­rears of rent and ejectment in respect of Shop No. 460 situate at Civil Lines, Rani Bagh, Lalitpur. The suit was instituted on the pleas inter alia that the respondent is a tenant on a monthly rent of Rs. 100/- and is in arrears of rent since 1.11.1995 whose tenancy has been terminated by a notice dated 18.12.1995 served on 26.12.1995. It was further pleaded that the defendant tenant ille­gally by removing the wooden partition wall has taken the possession of the other portion of the shop, which was earlier in occupancy of the petitioner landlord. By way of replication ejectment was also sought for on the ground of denial of title of the landlord. The suit was contested on the pleas inter alia that there is no default in payment of rent and that the tenant has not en­croached upon the other portion of the shop. In addition to other pleas it was pleaded that the present suit is not maintainable as the accommodation in question is an old construction and has been let out to the defendant tenant without there being any allotment order by the District Magistrate. In other words, the letting having taken place in violation of sections 11 and 13 of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972, the suit is not maintainable. The parties led evidence in support of their respective cases. The following seven issues were struck by the Trial Court on the basis of the pleadings of the parties :- 1. Whether rent-note was executed between the parties ? If not, its ef­fect ? 2. What is the length and width of the shop in the tenancy and the rate of rent ? 3. Whether the defendant is defaulter, hence liable to be evicted ? 4. Whether the defendant denied the landlordship of the plaintiff, therefore, is he liable to be evicted ? 5. Whether the defendant removed the partition and took illegal possession over the total areas and is liable to be evicted ? 6. Whether the solitary landlordship is not of the property in dis­pute and as the second landlord was not made party to the suit, therefore, is the suit not maintainable ? 7. Whether the provisions of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 apply to the shop in dispute, and the suit is not maintainable ?
(2.) THE suit was decreed by the judgment and decree dated 31.5.2001. The said decree was carried in revision being SCC Revision No. 4 of 2001 before the District Judge, Lalitpur who by the judgment and order dated 18.10.2001 has allowed the revision, set aside the judgment and de­cree of the Trial Court and dismissed the suit on the finding that in view of the Full Bench decision of this Court in the case of Nootan Kumar v. Second Additional District Judge. Challenging the legality and validity of the aforesaid order, the present writ petition has been filed. Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record. So far as the question of maintainability of suit and applicability of the Full Bench de­cision of Nootan Kumar (supra) is concerned, it is no longer in dispute that the said decision of Full Bench has been reversed by the Apex Court in the case of Nootan Kumar and others v. Additional District Judge and others., 2002 (49) ALR 251 (SC)=2002 (2) ARC 645 (SC). The learned Counsel for the respondent very fairly accepts the position. In view of the authoritative pronouncement of the Apex Court, the judgment of the Court below holding that the suit is not maintainable, cannot be allowed to stand. This part of the judgment is, therefore, set aside and reversed and it is held that the suit as framed is maintainable.
(3.) UNDER Issue No. 1, it was found by the Trial Court that the property in dispute was let out to the respondent tenant in pursuance of the rent agreement dated 7.1.1984. The execution of the said rent agreement was denied by the re­spondent tenant. The parties led evidence in support of their respective cases. The Trial Court after making analysis of the evidence of the parties as also taking into consideration the report of the handwriting expert, reached to the conclusion that the said rent agreement was executed by the respondent tenant. The said finding has also been confirmed by the Revisional Court. In this view of the matter, the finding recorded by the Two Courts below under Issue No. 1 stands confirmed.;