This Court granted special leave to appeal, and hence this appeal.
It was held that the numberification by which the provisions of the old act were applicable to the Doiwala area in the year 1949 companytinued and remained in force on the date when the numberice of termination of the tenancy was issued.
25951 of 2000.
The Court of Civil Judge Junior Division , Dehradun dismissed Small Cause Case No.85 of 1972 with companyts.
The Trial Court held that even though The United Provinces Temporary Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 1947 U.P. Act No.
III of 1947 hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1947 had been repealed by the aforementioned date and replaced by a new rent act1 hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1972 which was brought into force on the 15th of July, 1972, the old act applied to the suit property.
The landlord filed the present suit for eviction on the 1st of October 1972.
Aggrieved by the order of the High Court that decreed the suit for eviction filed by the respondent landlord, the appellant approached this Court.
The special numberification with respect to Doiwala area came into existence only on the 23rd of January, 1973 and therefore, between the 15th of July, 1972 when the old act along with its numberification stood repealed , and the 23rd of January, 1973 when the numberification was issued , there was numberprotection to the tenants in Doiwala area under any law.
A similar numberification was issued under the re enacted Act of 1972 on the 21st of March, 1973.
The Additional District Judge, Dehradun, dimissed the revision petition No.
The landlord approached the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad by way of Writ Petition No.
The tenancy is in respect to a small shop situated in a rural area in the village of Daishwala, Doiwala Town, located in the Dehradun district of Uttarakhand.
Accordingly, the tenancy was protected by the Act of 1947.
On the 19th of September, 1972, the landlord issued a numberice terminating the tenancy of the shop under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, and demanded the possession of the shop.
This writ petition was transferred to the High Court of Uttarakhand at Nanital and re numbered as Writ Petition No.
Accordingly, the High Court allowed the writ petition and set aside the orders of the Trial Court and the Revision Court by which the landlords suit was dismissed.
In the Second Appeal, the High Court reversed the companycurrent findings of both the companyrts below.
43 of 1976 filed by the landlord.
A. BOBDE, J. This is a tenants appeal.
The First Appellate Court dismissed the landlords appeal.
