The present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioners, inter alia, praying for quashing the judgment and decree dated 31-8-2000 (Annexure-10 to the writ petition) passed by the learned Judge, Small Cause Court, Agra and the judgment and order dated 5-10- 2002 (Annexure-11 to the writ petition) passed by the learned Additional District Judge (Court No. 10), Agra.

2. The dispute relates to a building, namely, Building No. 81 having Municipal No. 47-B/81 situated at Madhav Kunj, Pratapnagar within Loha Mandi Ward, Agra, the details whereof are given in the plaint of the Suit referred to hereinafter. The said building has hereinafter been referred to as "the disputed building".

3. A supplementary affidavit sworn on 27-11-2002 was filed on behalf of the petitioners in the writ petition. The said supplementary affidavit has hereinafter been referred to as "the first supplementary affidavit".

4. On 3-12-2002, an application dated 2-12-2002 alongwith an affidavit, sworn on 2-12-2002, was filed on behalf of the respondents. Further, on the said date i. e. , 3-12-2002, Shri Prakash Gupta, learned Counsel for the respondents made a statement that he did not propose to file counter-affidavit in this case.

5. On 13-12-2002, a supplementary affidavit, sworn on 9-12-2002, was filed on behalf of the petitioners. The said supplementary affidavit has hereinafter been referred to as "the second supplementary affidavit".

6. From a perusal of the writ petition and the aforesaid affidavits, it appears that Smt. Shanti Devi, predecessor-in- interest of the respondents filed a Suit against the petitioners for a decree for ejectment, arrears of rent, mesne profits etc. in respect of the disputed building. It was, inter alia, alleged in the said Suit that the said Smt. Shanti Devi (plaintiff) purchased a piece of land bearing plot No. 81 situated at Madhav Kunj, Pratapnagar, within Loha Mandi Ward, Agra by Registered sale-deed dated 27-1-1981, and thereafter, the constructions were raised thereon, which were completed in the year 1987 and its first assessment was made on 27-3-1987 by the Municipal Corporation, Agra and No. 47-B/81 was allotted to it; and that the said assessment came into force from 1-4-1987; and that the

said building (i. e. , disputed building) was described in Scheduled-A to the plaint; and that the said Smt. Shanti Devi (plaintiff) was the exclusive owner and landlady of the disputed building; and that the petitioners (defendants in the said Suit) were the tenants of the disputed building since 1- 3-1990 on a monthly rent of Rs. 1,500/- but they had neither paid any rent to the said Smt. Shanti Devi (plaintiff) nor they executed rent note in favour of the said Smt. Shanti Devi (plaintiff ).

7. It was, inter alia, further alleged in the said Suit that the constructions of the disputed building was completed in the month of March, 1987, and its first assessment came into force from 1-4-1987, and thus, the provisions of the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972) (in short "the Act") were not applicable to the disputed building.

8. It was, inter alia, further alleged in the said Suit that the petitioners (defendants in the said Suit) moved an application under Section 30 of the Act in the Court of Munsif, Agra to deposit rent being Misc. Case No. 125 of 1993, styled as Smt. Brahma Devi & Ors. v. Smt. Shanti Devi, in which the petitioners (defendants in the said Suit) alleged that the rate of rent was Rs. 500/- per month and they deposited rent from 1-4-1993; and that the said allegations had not been admitted by the said Smt. Shanti Devi (plaintiff), however, to avoid future complications and technical objections, the said Smt. Shanti Devi (plaintiff) was claiming in the said Suit the rent at the rate of Rs. 500/- per month from 1-4- 1993 as alleged by the petitioners (defendants in the said Suit) in t