MUKTESHWAR PRASAD, J.

( 1 ) THIS is landlords petition for quashing the judgment and decree dated 16. 9. 1998 (Annexure-13 to the writ petition) and judgment and decree dated 22. 7. 1997 (Annexure-9 to the writ petition) passed by respondent Nos. 1 and 2 respectively.

( 2 ) COUNTER-AFFIDAVIT and rejoinder-affidavit have been exchanged between the parties and are on record.

( 3 ) I have heard Sri Dev Raj, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri J. P. S. Chauhan, learned counsel for respondent No. 3 and have gone through the record carefully.

( 4 ) IT appears that the landlady filed a suit against respondent No. 3 for recovery of arrears of rent and damages and for eviction from the shop in dispute mainly on the ground that the provisions of U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 (in short the Act) do not apply and the tenant had sub-let the disputed shop to Raghubir Singh and Raju. The tenant paid no rent w. e. f. 1. 1. 1991 and did not pay house tax also. The landlady sent a notice determining the tenancy by registered post, which was served on 16. 12. 1995. However, neither shop was vacated nor arrears of rent was paid.

( 5 ) THE tenant contested the suit on the grounds, inter alia, that the provisions of Act did apply and he committed no default in payment of rent. He had paid rent due up to 31. 12. 1995. He never sub-let the disputed-shop to anybody.

( 6 ) THE parties led their oral and documentary evidence. After having considered the evidence on record led by the parties, the learned Judge, Small Causes held that shop in dispute came within the purview of the Act. He further found that the tenant was not a defaulter but he was occupying the disputed shop without an allotment order. Therefore placing reliance on a Full Bench decision of this Court in Nutan Kumar and Ors. v. Additional District Judge, Banda and Ors. , 2002 (2) A. R. C. , 645 decreed the suit partly for recovery of rent from 1. 8. 1996 at the rate of Rs. 125/- per mensem.

( 7 ) THE landlady filed a S. C. C. Revision No. 45/97 which was dismissed and the entire suit was dismissed with costs.

( 8 ) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner has assailed the impugned judgments mainly on the grounds that the provisions of the Act do not apply to the shop in question and the Courts below committed illegality in recording a finding that the Act applies to the shop in dispute. The Full bench decision of this Court in Nutan Kumar and Ors. v. Additional District Judge, Banda and ors. was set aside by the Honble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No. 7254 of 1996, decided on 27. 9. 2002, reported in 2002 (2) A. R. C. , 645. Therefore, the decision rendered by the full Bench is no longer a good law and as such, the case has to be remanded to the Court below for a fresh decision. It was also urged on behalf of the petitioner that learned Judge, Small causes did not take into consideration the Explanation (I) to sub-section (2) of Section 2 of the act which provides the guidelines for determining the date of construction of a building and trial court did not consider the copy of the assessment list prepared by Nagar Palika Parishad, nehtaur (Bijnor ).

( 9 ) RELIANCE has been placed by the petitioners learned Counsel on a decision of the Supreme court in Surya Dev Rai v. Ram Chander Rai and Ors. , J. T. 2003 (6) SC 465 : 2003 (2) ARC 385.

( 10 ) ON the other hand, learned Counsel for respondent No. 3 has supported the judgments and has contended that the suit of the petitioner was rightly dismissed by the revisional Court and there is no ground to interfere with the judgments under challenge in this petition.

( 11 ) I have considered the rival contentions of the parties and perused the copies of the plaint, written statement and copies of the oral and documentary evidence filed by the parties in this petition. I find from perusal of the impugned judgment passed by Judge, Small Causes that the judge framed two points for determination. Out of which, the first point was whether provisions

Click Here to Read the rest of this document