Hon’ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.—Heard Sri J.H. Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Miss Shaily Saxena, Advocate holding brief of Sri Vipin Sinha, Advocate for the respondents.

2. Short, but, important question of law involved in this case is whether Small Cause Suit filed by respondent-Bank seeking eviction from building in dispute is barred by Section 15 of Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as “Act, 1971”).

3. The facts, not in dispute, are that respondent-Bank is owner of property in dispute, namely, House No. 8/143, Bheron Bazar, Belanganj, Arga (known as “Bharat Building”). Petitioner was let out certain portion at first floor of the aforesaid building at a monthly rent of Rs. 60.30. Petitioner allegedly committed default in payment of rent as a result whereof Bank issued a notice dated 19.6.1987 under Section 106 of Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (hereinafter referred to as “Act, 1882”) demanding arrears of rent and determining petitioner’s tenancy and thereafter filed Small Cause Suit No. 116 of 1988 in the Court of Small Causes, Agra. Petitioner contested the suit alleging that he has deposited entire rent under Section 30 of U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as “Act, 1972”) in the Court of Munsif, Agra, hence, the decree of eviction cannot be passed against him by virtue of Section 20 (4) of Act, 1972. When issues were framed, it appears that a preliminary objection was raised by petitioner that disputed building is a public building as defined in Act, 1971 and, therefore, suit is barred by virtue of Section 15 of Act, 1971. Objection was turned down by Trial Court vide order dated 10.10.1991 whereagainst Civil Revision No. 42 of 1992 was filed and the same was also rejected by 9th Additional District Judge, Agra vide judgment dated 4.9.1992.

4. Sri J.H. Khan, learned counsel for petitioner, vehemently contended that once tenancy of petitioner was terminated by legal notice dated 19.6.1987, subsequent occupation of petitioner becomes unauthorized and having satisfied requirement of Section 15 (a) of Act, 1971, no suit was maintainable. Reliance is placed on a Single Judge judgment of this Court in Riyasat Khan v. Union of India, 2004 (4) AWC 3059.

5. Per contra, on behalf of Bank, reliance is placed on an earlier decision of this Court in Reserve Bank of India v. S.B. Srivastava, 1983 All LJ 147.

6. In the present case it cannot be doubted that initial possession of petitioner was not unauthorised. He was admittedly a tenant in the premises in dispute and there being certain default on his part, a demand notice was issued on 19.6.1987 and tenancy was terminated by the said notice said to have been issued under Section 106 of Act, 1882.

7. Though the notice itself does not mention any provision but that being so pleaded by petitioner, can it be said that such determination of tenancy results in rendering possession of a person of a building which is otherwise governed by a rent statute to be unauthorised or wholly illegal so as to take it away from the ambit of rent statute. This Court finds that mere determination of tenancy does not render a tenant liable for eviction/ejectment or dispossession by conferring any right of re-entry upon owner or landlord except of certain circumstances so provided in rent statute. This is clear from Section 20(1) of Act, 1972, which reads as under:

“20. Bar of suit for eviction of tenant except on specified grounds.—(1) Save as provided in sub-section (2), no suit shall be instituted for the eviction of a tenant from a building, notwithstanding the determination of his tenancy by efflux of time or on the expiration of a notice to quit in any other manner:

Provided that nothing in this sub-section shall bar a suit for the eviction of a tenant on the determination of his tenancy by efflux of time where the tenancy for a fixed term was entered into by or in pur