1.Heard Mr M. Islam, Advocate, for the petitioner.

2.Suit of respondent-landlord i.e. SCC Suit No. 62 of 1998, filed for ejectment of petitioner-tenant from accommodation in question, which is a residential building, on the ground of default in payment of rent, has been decreed by trial court vide judgement and order dated 15.12.2009 and the said judgement has also been confirmed by revisional court vide judgement dated 10.10.12 by dismissing SCC Revision No. 4 of 2010, whereagainst this writ petition has come up.

3.It is evident from record that petitioner-tenant deposited entire rent and other dues before the first date of hearing as contemplated under section 20( 4) of the UP Urban Buildings ( Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, ( in short, Act, 1972), but the courts below have declined to grant benefit by virtue of proviso to section 20( 4), which reads as under:

"20. Bar of suit for eviction of tenant except on specified grounds.

( 4) ...

Provided that nothing in this sub-section, shall apply in relation to a tenant who or any member of whose family has built or has otherwise acquired in a vacant state, or has got vacated after acquisition, any residential building in the same city, municipality, notified area or town area."

4.Learned counsel for petitioner contended that there are two manifest errors of law committed by courts below: ( 1) there was no pleading about the residential building in the same city, etc. so as to attract proviso to Section 20( 4) of Act, 1972; and, ( 2) the alleged residential accommodation belong to petitioner's father and bequeathed to petitioner's brother by a registered will, which defence has wrongly been discarded by the courts below. In support of submission about specific pleadings he placed reliance on a decision of this Court in ( 2005 All. C.J. 1953): Girish Chandra Gupta and others Vs. State of U.P. and others.

5.However, I find no force in the submission.

6.Act, 1972 basically protects tenants from exploitation of landlords. The availability of accommodation on rent was in scarcity and compelling demand thereof used to give upperhand to the landlords to exploit entire lot of homeless or otherwise needy persons of tenanted accommodation. The situation was realised even before Independence by the State and in the Province of Uttar Pradesh, a statute, namely, the United Provinces ( Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 1947 ( UP Act No. 3 of 1947) was enacted. The State legislature thereafter gave effect to its experience of rent laws working for almost three decades and enacted a more comprehensive statute, I.e. Act 1972, repealing UP Act NO. 3 of 1947.

7.This Act, 1972 governs only such buildings, as are situated in urban areas. Primarily, the entire statute is meant for protection of tenants but there are two provisions which recognise right of landlord to evict his tenant or get release of tenanted accommodation i.e. Section 20 and 21 of Act, 1972.

8. Section 20 of Act of 1972, on the one hand, deprives a landlord from exercise of his right of re-entry as available under Common Law and in particular under the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 ( hereinafter referred to Act, 1882) by stating in sub-section ( 1) that no suit shall be instituted by a landlord for eviction of a tenant from a building, notwithstanding determination of tenancy, by efflux of time or on expiration of a notice to quit or in any other manner. It, however, makes an inroad by way of exception I.e. to the extent it is permissible under sub-section ( 2). Meaning thereby there is a complete embargo on the right of a landlord for evicting a tenant by filing a suit for whatsoever reason available under any other law, unless the landlord is able to make out a case under sub-section ( 2) of section 20. Needless to say that embargo applies to the buildings within the ambit of Act, 1972.

9.Sub-section ( 2) provides certain conditions whereupon the landlord gets right to file