PHOOL SINGH Vs. ADDITIONAL J S C C BAREILLY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SHITLA Pd. Srivastava, J. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner who was the tenant for quashing the judg ment and order dated 27th March, 1993 and 3rd February, 1998, passed by the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 respectively (An-nexures 4 and 10 to the writ petition ).

(2.) THE facts giving rise to the present writ petition in brief are that the respon dent No. 3 filed a suit for ejectment against the petitioner before the J. S. C. C. on the ground that default was made by the petitioner for payment of monthly rent. In paragraph 9 of the plaint it was stated that the landlord on 3rd July, 1981 served a notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act on the defendant and then filed a suit. THE suit was contested by the petitioner on a number of grounds. THE main ground of defence was that the build ing is covered under U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972, therefore, the suit is not main tainable. THE second ground was that the notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act was illegal and no suit can be filed on the basis of the said notice. THE other defence taken by the petitioner was that he has deposited the amount on the first date of hearing, therefore, he was entitled to the benefit of Section 21 (4) of U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972. It is further stated in the petition that after filing suit the respondent landlord applied under Sec tion 21 (l) (a) of the Act 13 of 1972 for release of the property. THE said applica tion was dismissed up to the High Court. THE trial Court decreed the suit. Ag grieved by the said judgment a revision was filed by the petitioner. THE petitioner filed an application under Order XLI, Rule 27, CPC before the Revisional Court to admit the release application filed by the landlord to prove that the boundaries given in the notice as well as in the suit were different to that of the boundaries given in the application for release. THE revision was also dismissed. THE petitioner has challenged these two orders in this writ petition.

(3.) MR. Rajesh Tandon, Advocate, ap pearing on behalf of the contesting respondent has urged that the point of waiver under Section 13 of the Transfer of Property Act was not taken before the Revisiorial Court in the revision filed by the petitioner, therefore, this point can not be argued here in the writ jurisdiction. His contention is that the provisions of Rent Control Act are not applicable as the applicability of the Act is to be decided on the basis of the first municipal assessment of the building in question and as in this case the finding of fact has been recorded and that the first assessment was made in 1977, therefore, the provisions of Act was not applicable on the date when the suit was filed and since the case was not pend ing on July 15, 1972, when the Act came into force, rather it was filed in 1981, therefore, the provisions of the Act will not be applicable even if the requisite period of construction was completed during the pendency of the suit. He has placed reliance on a decision in Ashok Kumar Srivastava v. VII Addl. District Judge, 1989 (1) ARC 144. He has further placed reliance on Suresh Chand v. Gulam Chisti, 1990 (1) ARC 233, wherein the Supreme Court has held that the suit for eviction must be pending on 15th July, 1972. He has also placed reliance on a case reported in Raj Kumar Sharma v. District Judge, Hardwar, 1993 (2) ARC 103, wherein it has been held that the first date of Municipal Assessment is relevant date for granting period for applicability of Act No. 13 of 1972. He has further placed reliance on Bhola Nath Varshney v. Mulak Raj Madan, 1994 (1) JT (SC) 181, wherein it has been held that the law applicable on the date or the institution of the suit alone governs the suit and the mere fact that the statutory period of 10 years expires during the pendency of the suit/appeal/revision, the Act does not become applicable. Fur ther reliance has been placed by him on Atma Ram Mittal v. Ishwar Singh Punia, 1988 SC FBRC 549, wherein it has held that the right of the parties will have to be determined on the basis of the right avail able to them on the date of the suit. Fur ther reliance has been placed by him on a caseramesh Chandra v. IIlrdaddl. District Judge, Nainital, reported in 1992 Supreme Court Full Bench Rent Cases, 112. He has also placed reliance on a case reported in, Nootan Kumar and others v. II Addl. Dis trict Judge, 1993 (2) ARC 204, for the pur pose that there cannot be any tenancy without any allotment, therefore, even if even an application under Section 21 was filed that will not create a tenancy.