- (1.) A. K. Yog, J. Mohd. Tayyab/ Petitioner, is the tenant of a shop situate at Chakrata Road, Panditwari, near I. M. A. Dehradun (called "the shop") at the rate of Rs. 900 per month belonging to Siriram Gupta/respondent No. 2, who happens to be his landlord.
(2.) SIRIRAM Gupta, landlord, served notice dated 17th August, 1992 (Annexure-1 to the Writ Petition) on 24-8-1992 and filed J. S. C. Suit No. 71 of 1992 (SIRIRAM Gupta v. Mohd. Tayyab), claiming eviction as well as for arrears of rent against Defendant-tenant/petitioner on the ground that he did not pay arrears of rent inspite of notice being served on 24th August 1992. Copy of Plaint of said J. S. C. suit has been filed as Annexure-2 to the writ petition. Suit was contested by Defendant-tenant by filing written statement (An-nexure-SA-1 to the Supplementary Af-fidavit-1 ). Both the Plaintiff and Defendant led oral evidence in support of their respective cases. Perusal of Para 1 of the written state ment (Annexure- SA-1) indicates that Defendant accepted landlord tenant relationship and applicability of the provisions of U. P. Urban Buildings (Regula tion of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act. 1972, U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972 (for short called "the Act") to the instant case. In Paragraph 9 of the written state ment, it is pleaded that suit was barred by Section 20 of the Act. It was also pleaded that Plaintiff has no right to file suit before the Court of Judge Small Causes and that Plaintiff had not indicated as to when tenancy had commenced. It is also pleaded that provisions of the Act were applicable to the building in question and the Court of Judge Small Causes had no jurisdiction to entertain the same. In the written state ment Defendant-tenant did not specifical ly plead that there was no valid ground for release and that the agreement, if any, between Defendant and Plaintiff, being in contravention of provisions of the Act, was void ab-initio and inoperative. The Trial Court/judge Small Causes Court dismissed the aforesaid suit vide judgment an order dated 25th May, 1996. (Annexure-6 to the writ petition ). Siriram Gupta, landlord/respondent No. 2 filed S. C. C. Revision No. 15 of 1996, which has been allowed by Additional District Judge, Dehradun/respondent No. 1 vide judgmentand order dated 16th August, 1996 (Annexure-7 to the writ petition ).
(3.) DEFENDANT/petitioner, feeling ag grieved from the judgment of the Revisional Court/respondent No. 1 has filed this writ petition challenging the aforesaid judgment and order dated 16th August, 1999 (Annexure-7 to the writ peti tion ). Petitioner has filed Supplementary Affidavit II and stated that petitioner should be allowed to challenge finding of the Trial Court, Judge Small Causes Court against him on the question of default though he did not challenge the same before the Revisional Court because the judgment of Trial Court, assuch. wasin his favour. Contention of the petitioner, in short, is that Revisional Court ought to have remanded the case back to the Trial Court for deciding it afresh since he had no opportunity to assail the finding against him because the suit, in the ultimate result, was dismissed and thus he did not bother himself as he had no grievance so long decree of the trial Court in his favour existed. Trial Court had framed three issues, namely: "1. Whether any rent is due towards the Defendant? If so, howmuch? 2. Whether the U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 is applicable on the premises in dispute? If so, its effect? 3. Relief?" Trial Court, on Issue No. 1, recorded a finding of fact that rent with effect from 1st February, 1992 was due against the Defendant which was not paid in spite of demand and hence he was guilty of com mitting "default" in payment of rent. On Issue No. 2 Trial Court held that provisions of U. P. Act XIII of 1972 were applicable to the premises in question. Consequently, on Issue No. 3 Trial Court held that plaintiff was not entitled to the decree claimed as the premises in ques tion was let out without complying the provisions of U. P. Act XIII of 1972.;