D.P.Singh, J. - (1.) HEARD Sri P.N. Saxena, learned senior advocate assisted by Sri R. C. Pal for the petitioner and Sri A. K. Gupta for the contesting respondent.
(2.) THIS petition is directed against concurrent orders dated 27.2.2009 and 22.1.2009 by which the suit for eviction filed by the respondent- landlord has been decreed against the petitioner by both the courts below. The respondent-landlord instituted an eviction suit No. 57 of 2001 before the Judge, Small Causes Court for eviction of the petitioner-tenant from the disputed premises, inter-alia on the ground that the petitioner was a tenant of the disputed premises but had defaulted in payment of rent from 1.2.1991 to 31.8.2001 and had created sub-tenancy. It was further stated that it is a new construction and also since it belongs to a society, U. P. Act No XIII of 1972 (here-in-after referred to as the Act) was not applicable. It was further pleaded that despite a notice terminating the tenancy, neither the premises were vacated nor the rent paid, forcing him to file the suit. The petitioner-tenant admitted the relationship of landlord and tenant but disputed the sub-tenancy and the rate of rent and he further stated that he had tendered the amount of rent and damages and was entitled to the benefit of the Act which applied in the present case. After the parties had entered their evidence, the trial court framed as many as five issues including the issues as to whether the notice terminating the tenancy was valid and whether the petitioner was entitled to benefit of Section 114 of the Transfer of Property Act and also whether the U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972 was applicable and the petitioner was entitled to the benefit of deposit under Section 20 (4) thereof.
(3.) THE trial court vide its impugned judgment held that the Act was not applicable to the premises in dispute on both counts and further that the notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property was valid but since it was a simplicitor notice terminating the tenancy, the petitioner was not entitled to benefit of Section 114 of the Transfer of Property Act (here-in-after referred to as T. P. Act) and on the question of sub-tenancy, it held that the petitioner had created sub-tenancy. THE aforesaid judgment has been upheld in revision. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not challenged the finding relating to applicability of the Act. However, he has urged that the petitioner was entitled to benefit of Section 114 of the T. P. Act and which issue was not considered by the revisional court. It is also urged that the finding with regard to sub-tenancy was based on no evidence and therefore is vitiated.;