The burden of proof lies on the landlord to establish exemption from the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, and municipal records play a crucial role in determining the age of the tenanted accommodation.

O.P. Garg, J.

This is tenant's revision application u/s 25 of the Provincial Small Causes Courts' Act arising out of S.C.C. Suit No. 17 of 1989 instituted by the Plaintiff-Respondent Rameshwar Dayal Gupta seeking the eviction of the Defendant-revisionist from a portion of premises No. 88 Sadar Bazar Road, Cantt., Mathura and for recovery of arrears of rent and damages. A brief backdrop to the short point in issue - whether the provisions of U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (Act No. XIII of 1972)(hereinafter referred to as the Act No. XIII of 1972) are applicable to the tenanted accommodation or not - is that the Defendant-revisionist was inducted as tenant in the disputed portion of the house, aforesaid, comprising three rooms and a shed in the southern portion for running a school at the rate of Rs. 800 per month w.e.f. 1.5.1985. An agreement dated 10.4.1984 was executed between the parties. The plain tiff-Respondent (hereinafter referred to as the landlord) was aggrieved on account of non-payment of rent and consequently he served a notice dated 27.8.1937 of demand and to quit on the applicant-Defendant (hereinafter referred to as the tenant') who sent a reply there to and also remitted some amount of rent through a cheque. Since after the termination of the tenancy, the tenant failed to clear all the dues and to vacate the premises, the landlord was compelled to institute S.C.C. Suit No. 17 of 1989 claiming a sum if Rs. 20,740 as arrears of rent and pendente lite and future mesne profits @ Rs. 800 per month, besides the basic relief of delivery of possession after eviction of the tenant. The suit was contested by the tenant raising the controversy with regard to the monthly amount of rent which, according to her, was Rs. 700 per month only and not Rs. 800, as claimed by the landlord. It was also pleaded that the provisions of the Act No. XIII of 1972 apply to the disputed accommodation and since she has committed no default in payment of arrears of rent as she has been depositing the same u/s 30 of the Act No. XIII of 1972 on the refusal of the landlord to receive the same, she cannot be labelled as a defaulter within the meaning of Section 20(2)(a) of the Act No. XIII of 1972. She had also taken the plea that even if it be treated that she has committed default in payment of rent, she stands relieved of the liability from eviction as she has deposited the entire amount as contemplated u/s 20(4) of the Act No. XIII of 1972. Both the parties led evidence before the trial court.

2. After appraising the evidence on record and taking into consideration the respective submissions of learned Counsel for the parties, a finding of fact has been recorded that the provisions of the Act No. XIII of 1972 do not apply to the disputed accommodation and, therefore, on the termination of the tenancy of the tenant by a valid notice u/s 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, she is liable to be evicted. Accordingly, a decree has been passed for eviction of the tenant from the disputed accommodation and for recovery of arrears of rent and mesne profit as claimed by the landlord. It is in these circumstances that the present revision application has been preferred by the tenant by invoking the provisions of Section 25 of the Provincial Small Causes Courts' Act.

3. Heard Sri Rajesh Tandon, learned senior advocate appearing on behalf of the Defendant-revisionist (tenant) as well as Sri R.N. Bhalla, learned senior advocate representing Plaintiff-Respondent (landlord), at considerable length and perused the material brought on record.

4. The parties would swim or sink with the finding on the crucial question whether or not the provisions of the Act No. XIII of 1972 are applicable to the disputed accommodation. Sri Rajesh Tandon, learned senior advocate appearing on behalf of the tenant, vehemently argued that the evidence on record would itself indicate that the landlord has himself admitted that the pr