S. P. MEHROTRA, J.

( 1 ) THE present writ petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has been filed, inter-alia, praying for quashing the judgment and order dated 29th July, 2003 (Annexure 1 to the writ petition) passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Court No. 9. Moradabad (Revisional Court) and the judgment and order dated 21st March, 2003 (Annexure 2 to the writ petition) passed by the learned Judge, Small Cause Court, Moradabad.

( 2 ) THE dispute relates to a shop, situate Kazi Shaukat Hussain Road, Rafatpura Faizganj, moradabad, the details whereof are given in the plaint of the suit referred to hereinafter. The said shop has, hereinafter, been referred to as "the disputed shop. "

( 3 ) IT appears that the respondent No. 1 filed a suit against the petitioner for ejectment, arrears of rent, mesne profits etc. in respect of the disputed shop. It was, inter-alia, alleged in the said suit that the disputed shop was a part of the Waqf property; and that the said Waqf was registered in the office of U. P. Sunni Central Board of Waqf, Lucknow at Serial No. 140 Ex. 11; and that the petitioner did not pay rent with effect from 1. 11. 1996 despite demand; and that the respondent no. 1 gave notice dated 21. 10. 1997 through its Counselby registered post to the petitioner which was personally served on the petitioner on 22nd October, 1997; and that by the said notice, the tenancy of the petitioner was determined, and the petitioner was required to pay rent for the period from 1. 11. 1996 to 30th September, 1997 within one month of the receipt of the notice; and that by the said notice, the petitioner was required to vacate the disputed shop after the expiry of one month from the receipt of the said notice and hand-over its possession to the respondent No. 1; and that the petitioner did not comply with the directions of the said notice and instead, the petitioner sent incorrect reply dated 24. 11. 1997 through his Counsel, The said suit was registered as S. C. C. Suit No. 64 of 1999. Copy of the plaint of the said suit has been filed as annexure 3 to the writ petition.

( 4 ) IT further appears that the petitioner contested the said suit and filed written statement, a copy whereof has been filed as Annexure 4 to the writ petition.

( 5 ) IT was interalia, stated in the said written statement that the provisions of the U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 (hereinafter also referred to as "the Rent Act") were applicable to the disputed shop; and that the suit was barred by Section 114 of the Transfer of Property Act.

( 6 ) IT further appears that by the judgment and order dated 1st March, 2001 the learned Judge; small Cause Court, Moradabad dismissed the said suit filed by the respondent No. 1 Copy of the said judgment and order dated 1st March, 2001 has been filed as Annexure 5 to the writ petition.

( 7 ) IT was, inter-alia, held in the said judgment and order dated 1st March, 2001 that the petitioner had deposited the entire rent payable with effect from 1. 11. 1996, and the respondent No. 1 was entitled to receive the said rent deposited by the petitioner; and that in view of the deposit having been made by the petitioner, the petitioner was not liable to be evicted from the disputed shop; and that as the petitioner complied with the provisions of Section 114 of the Transfer of Property act, the respondent No. 1 was not entitled to evict the petitioner.

( 8 ) AS regards the issue as to whether the provisions of the Rent Act (U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972)were applicable to the present case, the said issue was decided against the petitioner (Defendant ). Hence, the provisions of the U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 were held to be not applicable to the disputed shop.

( 9 ) AGAINST the said judgment and order dated 1st March, 2001, the respondent No. 1 filed a revision which was registered as S. C. C. Revision No. 19 of 2001.

( 10 ) BY the judgment and order dated 13. 12. 2001, the learned Special Judge (E. C. Act)/the additional District

Click Here to Read the rest of this document