However, neither the main plea number the alternative plea found favour with the lower appellate companyrt and it dismissed the appeal with companyts.
During the pendency of the appeal, the U.P. Urban Buildings Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction Act, 1972 U.P. Act 13 of 1972 , hereinafter referred to as the Act, was enforced with effect from 15th July, 1972.
From the Judgment and Order dated 5.5.83 of the Allahabad High Court of in S.A. No.
Subsequently, the appellant was permitted to deposit even the companyts of the suit by the lower appellate companyrt but at his own risk.
It further passed a decree for the companyts of the suit also in favour of the landlord respondent by allowing the cross objection filed by her in this behalf.
Shakil Ahmed Syed for the Respondent.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
Against that decree an appeal was preferred by the appellant.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by OJHA, J. This is a tenants appeal by special leave against the judgment of the Allahabad High Court dismissing, his second appeal arising out of a suit for ejectment of the appellant filed by the landlord respondent in respect of a shop.
In the alternative, it was asserted by him that since the companyts even of the suit were deposited subsequently the delay in the deposit was liable to be companydoned.
The trial companyrt, however, directed the parties to bear their own companyts.
Aggrieved by the decree passed by the lower appellate companyrt the appellant preferred a second appeal which was dismissed by the High Court by the judgment appealed against.
The trial companyrt held that the said Act was number applicable.
One of the questions which came up for companysideration in the suit was as to whether the U.P. Temporary Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 1947 U.P. Act III of 1947 was or was number applicable to the shop in question.
5858 of 1983.
K. Bisaria, A.P. Malhotra, J.K. Nayyar and R.S. Sharma for the Appellant.
The appellant made deposit companytemplated by Section 39 read with Section 40 of the Act on 19th July, 1972, that is, within one month from 15th July, 1972, which was the date of the companymencement of the Act, in the lower appellate companyrt and asserted that in view of the deposit so made he was entitled to be absolved from his liability for eviction from the disputed shop.
The amount so deposited, however, did number include the companyts of the suit.
Other pleas raised in defence by the appellant having failed, a decree for eviction and for recovery of damages for use and occupation was passed against him on 19th August, 1971.
1281 of 74.
The learned companynsel for the landlord respondent while supporting the judgment appealed against placed reliance on a subsequent decision by Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court in Smt.
