Hon’ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.—Heard Sri Rajeev Misra and Prakash Padia for the appellants and Sri R.P. Tiwari for the respondents in both the appeals.

2. Both these appeals have arisen from common proceedings and the orders passed by the Court below arising out of Original Suit No. 162 of 1996 and, therefore, as requested and agreed by learned counsel for the parties, have been heard together.

3. The following substantial questions of law initially were formulated by this Court:

“1. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the suit was not maintainable before the Civil Court being barred by U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 ?

2. Whether the appellant is entitled to the benefit of Section 29-A (3) read with Section 20 whereby the suit for eviction was barred except on the grounds mentioned therein?

3. Whether the Courts below are justified in law in not considering the claim of appellants under Section 29-A (3) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 despite the direction of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 391 of 2010 dated 15.1.2010?

4. Whether the Courts below are justified in law in holding that the argument that suit is barred by U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 is without force as th