The U.P. Act XIII of 1972 applies to the Cantonment areas of Uttar Pradesh subject to the restrictions and exceptions contained in Act 46 of 1957 and the modifications contained in the notification dated September 1, 1973 issued by the Central Government.

D.S. Bajpai, J.

1. BY means of Writ Petition No. 1240 of 1985 the petitioner, H. L. Kumar, has prayed for a writ of certiorari to quash the order of the II Additional District Judge, Lucknow, dated 16th March, 1985 passed in S.C.C. Revision No. 49 of 1983 (Annexure 5) as also the order of the Additional Judge Small Cause Court, Lucknow dated 3rd February, 1983 passed in S.C.C. Suit No. 430 of 1981 (Annexure 4). In the connected writ petition No. 1456 of 1985 the petitioner, Smt. Parbhu Dutt Bajaj, has also prayed for issue of a writ of certiorari to quash the same two orders passed by the II Additional District Judge, Lucknow, dated 16th March, 1985 (Annexure 9 herein) and 3rd February, 1983 passed by the Additional Judge Small Cause Court Lucknow (Annexure 4). S.C.C. Suit No. 430 of 1981 was filed by one Smt. Santosh and Sri Mahendra Singh, inter alia, stating that the defendant No. 1 in the suit H. L. Kumar was a tenant of Miss Agnes Felecia Periera in a portion of house No. 578-A, Sadar Bazar, Lucknow Cantonment, on a monthly rent of Rs. 55/- and that thereafter from the said owner landlady the plaintiffs purchased the house in suit by a registered sale-deed dated 12th May, 1981 and the defendant no. 1 became a tenant of the plaintiffs thereafter. A plea was taken to the effect that since the house was situated within the Cantonment limits of Lucknow, the provisions of U. P. Act XIII of 1972 were not applicable and the second plea raised was that the defendant no. 1, H. L. Kumar, had sublet a portion of the tenanted accommodation to the defendant no. 2, Smt. Prabhu Dutt Bajaj, on a monthly rent of Rs. 39/- without the permission or consent of the former landlady, the predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiffs. The parties contested the suit mainly on these two points. Ancillary pleas regarding the liability of defendant no. 1 to pay water tax as also compliance of the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act inasmuch as notice was served on the defendant no. 1 terminating his tenancy also found place in the plaint which is annexure 1 to the Writ Petition No. 1240 of 1985. The substantive relief claimed was for ejectment of the defendants from the suit accommodation and for payment of arrears of rent and damages, as also for recovery of water tax and pendente lite and future damages along with pendente lite and future water tax. The defendants filed their written- statements separately. The defendant no. 1 took a plea that his father was inducted into the tenancy of the accommodation in his possession and that he had no concern with the accommodation in possession of the defendant no. 2 and that the defendant no. 1 was himself occupying the accommodation since last over 30 years, his father having died in the year 1957 leaving behind the answering defendant, his widowed mother and the answering defendant's widowed sister who was out and living at Moradabad. It was further stated that one Prabhu Dutt Bajaj occupied the accommodation as an independent tenant and after his death Smt. Prabhu Dutt Bajaj, the defendant no. 2, was occupying it in her own right. The plea of the plaintiffs regarding non applicability of the U. P. Act XIII of 1972, hereinafter to be referred as the Act, was repelled and it was prayed that the suit deserved to be dismissed as frivolous, vexatious and not maintainable. The defendant no. 2 also raised practically similar pleas stating that she, Smt. Prabhu Dutt Bajaj, (Smt. Sushila Bajaj), the answering defendant, who was a widow of the said Sri Prabhu Dutt Bajaj, along with Sri Vijai Bajaj, Kamlesh, R. K. Bajpai and Vinod Bajaj, her children, was occupying the accommodation. She asserted that the husband of the answering defendant was an independent tenant in his own right and that the plea of sub-tenancy was false and prayed that the suit be dismissed as not maintainable. It will, however, appear that no specific plea about the non-applicability of the U. P. Act XIII of 1972 was raised by the p