Manoj Kumar Gupta, J. - (1.) The instant petition is directed against the judgement and order dated 7.9.2017 passed by Additional District Judge, Court No.2, Bareilly in SCC Revision No.19 of 2015, whereby the revision filed by the plaintiff-respondent has been allowed and the judgement and decree dated 19.9.2015 passed by the Court of Small Causes dismissing SCC Suit No.30 of 2013 has been set aside, after returning a finding that provisions of U.P. Act No.13 of 1972 (for short 'the Act') were not applicable to the building in dispute. The matter has been remitted back to the trial court for deciding the case afresh, in the light of the findings recorded in the said judgement.
(2.) The brief facts of the case are that the suit in question of the nature of small causes was instituted by the plaintiff-respondent for recovery of arrears of rent and for eviction of the petitioners on the ground that provisions of the Act were not applicable; that the tenancy of the petitioners had been terminated by a notice dated 30.6.2013 under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act; that the petitioners had failed to vacate the premises even after expiry of the statutory period. The suit was contested by the petitioners by filing a written statement taking a specific plea that provisions of the Act were applicable to the building under their tenancy; that the petitioners had deposited rent under Section 30 of the Act in Misc. Case No.49 of 2013; that they had sent a money order to the plaintiff-respondent for a sum of Rs.3850/- which was refused; that they had also deposited the entire amount contemplated by Section 20 (4) and thus, should be relieved from the liability of eviction.
(3.) Before proceeding further, it is pertinent to note certain more facts which are not in dispute between the parties. The petitioners were tenant of an old building, which was earlier in existence at the same site, but was in dilapidated condition. A release application under Section 21 (1) (b) was filed in respect of the same by the plaintiff-respondent against the petitioners, which was registered as P.A. Case No.48 of 1993. The case of the plaintiff-respondent was that the building being in dilapidated condition, it was required for demolition and new construction. The said case was allowed on 25.3.1994 in terms of a compromise Paper No.15/Ka-3 - 15 Ka-5 and 16/Ka-3 to 16/Ka-5. The compromise was entered into between the parties on 23.3.1994 i.e. during pendency of the release application and wherein, the parties admitted that the building was in a dilapidated condition and required demolition and reconstruction. The petitioners agreed to vacate the same to enable the plaintiff-respondent to demolish the building and to construct a new one in its place. During this period, the plaintiff-respondent also provided an alternative place to the petitioners to carry on their business. It was also agreed between the parties that as soon as new building is constructed, it will be let out to the petitioners for initial period of five years on a rent of Rs.200/- per month plus taxes, which would be enhanced by 5% every year after five years and 7.5% every year thereafter. Clause (xi) of the said agreement, which is anchor-sheet of the case of the petitioners, reads thus:- IMAGE;