IMPORTANT POINT
The interpretation of statutory language can be flexible to achieve legislative intent, as seen in the reading of 'and' as 'or' in Section 2(1)(f) of the Uttar Pradesh Act No. 13 of 1972.

JUDGMENT :

Saral Srivastava, J.

1. Heard Sri Pankaj Agarwal, learned counsel for the petitioners, and Sri Atul Dayal, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Ms. Pooja Agarwal, learned counsel for the respondents and perused the records.

2. The petitioners, who are tenants, through this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India have assailed the judgment and decree dated 22.11.2016 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Court No. 13, Allahabad by which the learned Judge has decreed the S.C.C. Suit No. 64 of 2010 instituted by respondent no.1- Sangam Educational Society and the judgment and order dated 10.1.2019 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, (F.T.C.), Court No. 20, Allahabad in S.C.C. Revision No. 14 of 2016.

3. The facts in brief are that respondent no.1-Sangam Educational Society instituted Suit No. 64 of 2010 praying for a decree of eviction of the petitioners from the premises i.e. portion of House No.2 (old), 11 (New), Malviya Road, Allahabad (hereinafter referred to as 'the suit property'). The case in the plaint was that respondent no.1 purchased the suit property by a registered sale deed dated 7.8.2001.

4. It is stated that respondent no.1 is a Society registered under the Society Registration Act, 1860, and the suit property is held by it for its use and occupation. It is further stated that the suit property is exempted from the provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Act No. 13 of 1972 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). It is further stated that one K.N. Sinha was the tenant of the suit property, and after his death, the petitioners inherited the tenancy. Respondent no.1 by notice dated 21.6.2010, which was sent on 30.6.2010, demanded arrears of rent from the petitioners and terminated the tenancy of the petitioners.

5. In the alternative, the case set up in the plaint was that if the Court concludes that the provisions of Uttar Pradesh Act No. 13 of 1972 are applicable, the petitioners are liable to be evicted in terms of Section 20(2)(a) of the Act, inasmuch on the date of service of notice dated 21.6.2010, they were in arrears of rent for more than four months and they failed to pay such rent to respondent no.1 within one month from the date of service of notice on them. It is further stated that respondent no.1 is entitled to recover Rs. 2575.00/- as arrears of rent for the period of 7.8.2001 to 31.7.2010 from the petitioners, and also entitled to damages at Rs. 87.50 for the period of 1.8.2010 to 15.11.2010, and further damages till the actual date of delivery of possession at the rate of Rs. 25/- per month.

6. The aforesaid suit was contested by the petitioners by filing a written statement contending, inter alia, that the provisions of Uttar Pradesh Act No. 13 of 1972 apply to the suit property.

7. At this stage, certain dates are relevant to appreciate the controversy at hand.

8. In the present case, the suit has been instituted on 18.11.2010. On 18.11.2010, the Trial Court fixed 20.12.2010 for filing the written statement. On the said date i.e. 20.12.2010, the Trial Court found the service of summons upon the petitioners not sufficient and directed respondent no.1 to take fresh steps for service of notice upon the petitioners fixing 27.1.2011. The Trial Court on 27.1.2011 held that service of notice upon the petitioners was sufficient and fixed 9.2.2011 for filing the written statement. On 9.2.2011, the petitioners did not appear. Accordingly, the Trial Court passed an order to proceed exparte against the petitioners fixing 21.2.2011 for the hearing of the suit.

9. It transpires from the order sheet that on 18.2.2011, the petitioners filed an application 22-Ga seeking leave of the Court to deposit tender, on which the Court passed an order "put on the date fixed". On 16.3.2011, the petitioners filed an application 22-Ga along with affidavit 23-Ga to recall the order dated 9.2.2011 by which the Trial Court directed to proceed exparte against the petitioners. It appears t