IMPORTANT POINT
Admissions in pleadings regarding the construction date of a building preclude the applicability of the U.P. Urban Buildings Act, leading to lawful eviction of the tenant.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Sri Ajay Kumar Singh learned council for the petitioner and Sri Chetan Chatterjee, learned counsel for the opposite parties.

2. This petition is filed at the instance of the tenant of the premises in question as directed against the order passed by the Judge, Small Causes dated 18.02 2021 in S.C.C. No.46 of 2021 as well as the order passed by the court sitting in revision dated 05.03.2022 in S.C.C. Revision No.20 of 2021.

3. Briefly stated facts of the case are that respondent-landlord instituted a suit for recovery of arrears of rent and damages and for eviction after issuing notice dated 3.01.2015 to the tenant-petitioner determining the tenancy. He took a specific plea to the effect that the construction of tenanted premises were made in the year 2001 and that there was a written agreement between him and tenant petitioner executed on 01.12.2008 for an agreed rent of Rs.1000/- per month. Written statement was filed in the matter in which not only these averments made in paragraph nos. 2, 5 and 9 of the plaint were admitted as it was clearly stated that these are not being denied. A particular statement had been made in paragraph no. 30 to the effect that the Act No.13 of 1972 was not applicable. Taking this to be an admission on the part of the defendant of the plaint case, the landlord moved an application under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC which was initially allowed by the Judge, Small Causes by judgment and decree dated 04.05.2019 which came to be challenged before this court directly by moving a petition being Matter Under Article 227 No.607 of 2020 against which, a rivision petition was filed bearing No.14 of 2019 which too was dismissed on 23.10.2019. Both these orders came to be challenged before this court on the plea that the objection moved by the petitioner and the application moved by the landlord were not considered at all.

4. This court took notice of the arguments advanced on behalf of the petitioner and the learned Advocate who was appearing for the landlord-respondent in the said case agreed that order be quashed and the matter be remanded. It was in these circumstances that matter was remanded to the trial court by setting aside both the orders assailed in the petition to decide Order 12 Rule 6 application afresh. The last 3 paragraphs of the order of this court dated 23/1/2020 are reproduced hereunder:

"In view of submission made by learned counsel for the respondents and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the order dated 04.05.2019 passed by Judge Small Cause Court, Varanasi in J.S.C.C. Suit No.46 of 2015 (Munna Lal and Another Vs. Manoj Kumar) as well as order dated 23.10.2019 passed by District Judge, Varanasi in S.C.C. Revision No.14 of 2019 is set aside. The writ petition is allowed with a direction to Judge Small Cause Court, Varanasi to consider and decide the application no. 72-Ga of respondents/landlord under Order 12 Rule 6 of C.P.C expeditiously preferably within a period of six months from the date of production of certified copy of this order without granting any unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties.

In case if any adjournment is inevitable, the authority concerned may grant the same by imposing heavy cost which may not be less than Rs.1,000/-.

The writ petition is allowed subject to observations made above. "

5. It is after the matter was remanded that petitioner moved an application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC seeking amendment of the written statement in respect of paragraph 30 for deleting the same and adding a new paragraph to the effect that Act No.13 of 1972 did apply. The court, however, firstly rejected the amendment application vide order dated 29.02.2020 which was again challenged before this court. However the writ petition this time remained pending and in the meanwhile Order 12 Rule 6 application came to be allowed by decreeing the suit afresh vide detailed judgment and order dated 18.02.2021. This order along with an order deciding the amendment