Hon’ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.—Heard Sri P.N.Saxena, Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Shailendra Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Y.S. Saxena, learned counsel for the respondents.

2. The pleadings are complete hence as requested and agreed by learned counsel for the parties I proceed to decide the matter finally at this stage under the Rules of the Court.

3. The writ petition is directed against judgment and order dated 7.12.2009 passed by Judge, Small Causes Court, Bareilly decreeing S.C.C.Suit No. 1 of 2006 of plaintiff-landlord vide judgment dated 7.12.2009 for ejectment of tenant i.e. present petitioners and for payment of rent and mesne profit from premises in question and the revisional order dated 16.11.2010 passed by Special Judge, S.C./S.T. Act, Bareilly dismissing petitioner’s Revision No. 52 of 2009.

4. Sri P.N. Saxena, learned Senior Counsel has assailed the impugned judgment only on the ground that preliminary issue i.e. issue regarding applicability of Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972) (hereinafter referred to as “Act, 1972”) was raised by petitioners but both the Courts below in a wholly illegal manner have held that the said Act is not applicable to the proceedings in question in respect to the accommodation in tenancy of petitioners and having said so, passed decree of ejectment from premises in question holding that petitioners’ tenancy has validly been terminated by landlord in accordance with law.

5. It is not in dispute that issue No. 2 was framed by Trial Court as under:

“Whether shop in question is governed by provisions of Act, 1972”.

6. The pleadings of respondent-landlord in respect to applicability of Act, 1972 was in para 1 of the plaint wherein it had stated that plaintiff-landlord Sanatan Dharm Satsang Bhawan Adhyatmic Vidyalaya, Faridpur District Bareilly is a Society registered under Society Registration Act, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as “Act 1860”) having its objective social, spiritual and religious and it spent its entire income for the aforesaid purposes namely social, spiritual and religious. It is with this pleading made in para 1 of the plaint; in para 7 thereof, the plaintiff-landlord had pleaded that Act 13 of 1972 is not applicable to the premises in question which is a shop situated at Sabzi Mandi, Alenganj, Faridpur, District Bareilly.

7. The petitioner-tenant denied contents of para 1 of the plaint in para 7 of his written statement. Again denying contents of para 7 of plaint, pleaded that Rent Control Act is applicable over the shop in question. In para 21 of the written statement it is further pleaded by petitioner tenant that plaintiff-landlord being a Society registered under the Act, 1860 for this reason also Act, 1972 is applicable on the shop under tenancy of the petitioner-tenant.

8. The Trial Court has simply observed that landlord institution is a “registered Society” having “social, spiritual and religious” objective and spending its entire income for the said purpose, hence, is beyond the purview of the Act, 1972 in view of Section 2(1)(bb) thereof. The tenant’s further reliance on Section 2(1)(f) of Act, 1972 has been rejected on the ground that unless it is proved that property in question was constructed by the Society or it is in possession thereof, 2(1)(f) cannot be applied. Further to reject the contention of petitioner-tenant, Trial Court says that mere denial by tenant is not sufficient but it was incumbent upon him (them) to plead further and place evidence that basic objective of Society is not social, religious and spiritual. The very title of Society shows that its basic objective is religious and spiritual and therefore Act, 1972 is not applicable.

9. The Revisional Court has also completely reiterated what has been said by Trial Court to hold that Act, 1972 is not applicable.

10. Sri P.N. Saxena, Senior Advocate vehemently contended that Courts below ha