S. P. MEHROTRA, J.

( 1 ) THIS writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner, inter alia, praying for quashing the order dated 21. 9,1982 passed by 1st Additional district and Sessions Judge, Bijnor (respondent No. 1) and also partly quashing the order dated 19. 3. 1982 passed by Judge, Small Cause Court, Bijnor (respondent No. 2) to the extent that the shop was constructed in 1976 and the provision of Section 2 (f) of the U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972 was attracted to the shop in question.

( 2 ) THE disputes relates to a shop situated in Agarwal Dharmshala, Station Road, Nagina, district bijnor. The said shop is hereinafter referred to as "the disputed accommodation. "

( 3 ) THE respondent No. 3 filed a suit in the Court of Judge, Small Causes, inter alia, praying for decree of ejectment, arrears of rent and the mesne profits against the petitioner in respect of the disputed accommodation. The said suit was registered as Suit No. 23 of 1981.

( 4 ) IT was alleged by the respondent No. 3 in the said suit that the respondent No. 3 was a registered institution and the petitioner was a tenant in the disputed accommodation on monthly rent of Rs. 30 ; and that the petitioner paid rent upto 30. 6. 1980 ; and that the rent with effect from 1. 7,1980 was due from the petitioner ; and that the disputed accommodation was constructed in the year 1976, as such, the provisions of the U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972 (in short "the Act") were not applicable to the disputed accommodation ; and that the respondent No. 3 gave a notice dated 15. 10. 1982 to the petitioner, and the petitioner gave incorrect reply to the said notice.

( 5 ) THE petitioner filed his written statement in the said suit. It was, inter alia, alleged by the petitioner in the written statement that the tenancy of the petitioner was tri-monthly, and the respondent No. 3 always realized rent for three months of which the petitioner had got receipts : and that the petitioner regularly paid tri-monthly rent to the respondent No. 3 ; and that when the petitioner tendered rent to the respondent No. 3, then the respondent No. 3 refused to accept the same and sent a notice to the petitioner making incorrect allegations ; and that the petitioner sent reply to the said notice, and also sent rent by money order which was refused by the respondent no. 3 ; and that the allegation of the respondent No. 3 that the disputed accommodation was constructed in the year 1976, was incorrect and baseless ; and that the disputed accommodation was 50 years old ; and that in the year 1976 the respondent No. 3 got minor repairs done in the disputed accommodation, hence, the provisions of the aforesaid Act were applicable to the same.

( 6 ) THE learned Judge Small Causes Court, Nagina (respondent No. 2) by his Judgment and decree dated 19. 3. 1982 (Annexure-4 to the writ petition) dismissed the said suit filed by the respondent No. 3. It was, inter alia, held by the respondent No. 2 that in view of the provisions of section 2 (f) of the Act as well as in view of the fact that the disputed accommodation was constructed in the year 1976, the provisions of the Act were not applicable to the disputed accommodation. It was, inter alia, further held by the respondent No. 2 that firstly, the respondent No. 3 (plaintiff) had failed to prove that the petitioner (defendant) was defaulter in payment of rent, and secondly, the petitioner deposited the entire arrears of rent and the cost of the suit on the first day of hearing, as such, the suit was liable to be dismissed.

( 7 ) THE respondent No. 3 thereupon, filed revision being Civil Revision No. 138 of 1982 under section 25 of the Provincial Small Causes Court Act.

( 8 ) THE learned 1st Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bljnor (respondent No. 1) by his judgment and order dated 21st September, 1982 (Annexure-5 to the writ petition) allowed the said revision, set aside the said judgment and decree passed by the respon

Click Here to Read the rest of this document