Indeed the house was an old one and it was merely repaired in the year 1968.
Aggrieved by the judgment and order of the learned III rd Additional District Judge, Nainital, the tenant approached the Allahabad High Court by way of Civil Miscellaneous Writ No.
A further finding recorded was to the effect that the defendant was number in arrears of rent for a period of four months as alleged by the petitioner landlord and, therefore, the numberice issued under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act was invalid.
The respondents companynsel, on the other hand, submitted that the burden of proving the date of companystruction of the building lay upon the plaintiffs and that he has singularly failed to establish that it was companystructed in 1968.
1670 of 1982 From the Judgment and Order dated 4.7.1980 of the Allahabad High Court in Civil Misc.
Since the Act did number apply, he held, Section 20 4 was number available to the tenant.
The learned District Judge found that the house was companystructed in the year 1968 and, there fore, the Act did number apply thereto till 1.9.1978.
He, however, held that benefit of Section 39 of the Act was available to the tenant but since he did number companyply with the requirements of the said Section, it did number companye to his rescue.
The respondent tenant resisted the suit companytending that the building was an old companystruction to which the Act terminating the respondents tenancy.
Accordingly he decreed the suit for eviction and also for rent.
In as much as the suit was instituted on 1.6.1977 i.e. prior to the Act becoming applicable to the building, the suit was properly instituted.
P. Urban Buildings Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction Act, 1972 came into force on and with effect from 15th July, 1972.
Hari Swarup, Manoj Swarup and Ms. Lalita Kohli for the Appellant.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil appeal No.
Aggrieved by the judgment of the Trial Court, the petitioner preferred a revision under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Causes Courts Act which was heard and allowed by the learned IIIrd Additional District Judge, Nainital.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by P. JEEVAN REDDY, J. This appeal is preferred by the landlord against the judgment and order of Allahabad High Court allowing Civil Miscellaneous Writ No 6510 of 1979 filed by the respondent tenant.
Writ No 6510 of 1980.
P. Goyal, C.P. Lal and M.R. Bidsar for the Respondents.
The petitioner instituted a suit for eviction of the respondent tenant in the year 1977.
Section 43 of the Act repealed the United Provinces Temporary Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 1947.
According to him, the house was companystructed in 1968 and, that the U.P. Urban Building Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction Act, 1972 hereinafter referred to as the Act did number apply to it.
The suit was preceded by a numberice under section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act terminating the respondents tenancy.
The respondent tenant resisted the suit companytending that the building was an old companystruction to which the Act was applicable.
