- (1.) A. K. Yog,. J. Vijay Pal Singh, Respondent No. 3, filed suit in the Court of Judge Small Causes, Muzaffarnagar, J. C. C. Suit No. 70 of 1992; Vijay Pal Singh v. Jai Prakash and another (Annexure 1 to the Writ Petition ). The said suit was filed on the ground that provision of U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972) (for short called 'the Act') were not applicable as the building consisting of shop in question was first assessed w. e. f. 1-4-1986. Petitioner-Defendant No. 1 filed written statement and disputed the said position (Annexure 2 to the Writ Petition ). He also denied that part of the shop in question was sub-let to Amir Ahmad (Defendant No. 2-Respon-dent No. 4 in the present petition ). Judge, Small Causes Court vide judgment and order dated 2nd May, 1998 allowed the suit and directed the defendant to hand over possession of the shop in question and pay the arrears of rent and other dues (Annexure 6 to the Writ Petition ).
(2.) FEELING aggrieved Defendant No. 1-Tenant-petitioner filed S. C. C. Revision No. 60 of 1998. The Revisional Court af firmed judgment and order dated 2nd May, 1999 (Annexure 6 to the Writ Peti tion ). Revisional Court has decided the Issue Nos. 1 and 3 together. Issue No. 1 pertains to the applicability of provisions of the Act to the shop in question. Issue No. 3 was with respect to the fact whether Defendant-tenant has deposited entire amount as contemplated under Section 20 (4) of the Act. The finding on the Issue No. 1, namely question regarding applicability of Act is being discussed along with the ques tion regarding default. If the finding on the Issue No. 1 is not sustained, the finding on the question of default will also require reconsideration. I have perused the Assessment Register filed along with writ petition (as Annexure 5 to the Writ Petition ). The said extract of the Assessment Register does riot show as to from which date assessment was imposed and building was subjected to assessment under relevant Municipal laws.
(3.) LEARNED counsel appearing for the Caveator/respondent has conceded that the extract of the Assessment Register does not show the firs', date of assessment. LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has, however, taken me through other material and evidence on record to show that find ings recorded by the Courts below are not vitiated and the same should not be inter fered by this Court in exercise of its juris diction under Article 226, Constitution of India. I have considered the submissions made at the Bar. i find that in absence of relevant material to show as to when as sessment was first imposed on the shop in question (which could be proved through documentary evidence), finding on the issue relying upon oral evidence cannot be sustained. In the light of the above, the findings recorded by the Revisional Court on Issue Nos. 1 and 3 cannot be sustained in law and it is accordingly set aside. The findings on Issue No. 2 are not interfered with.;