ORDER Anjani Kumar, J.
1. This writ petition has been filed by the plaintiff-landlord who filed a suit before the Judge of Small Cause Court on the ground that the defendant is the tenant of the accommodation in dispute and according to the plaint allegation the construction of the building was completed in the year, 1985. The same was let out to the defendant-tenant in the year, 1986 and since the defendant has committed default in payment of agreed rent, therefore, the plaintiff-landlord filed a suit being Suit No. 62 of 1997 for the ejectment of the defendant-tenant and arrears of rent and damages after terminating the tenancy by the notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. The defendant-tenant has contested the aforesaid suit and filed written statement denying the plaint allegation firstly that the land over which the building is constructed, is agricultural land to which the provisions of U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act are applicable and since the land occupied by the plaintiff, over which the building in dispute stands, still retains its character of agricultural land therefore, the court of small causes do not have jurisdiction to entertain the suit. On the question of applicability of the provisions of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972, the defendant pleaded that the building in question is constructed in the year, 1981, therefore, the provisions of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 are applicable and further on the first date of hearing the defendant has complied with the provisions of Section 20(4) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972, the defendant is entitled to the benefit of provisions of Section 20(4) and no decree for ejectment on the ground of arrears of rent can be passed and suit therefore, is liable to be dismissed. On the question of default, the trial court found that since the provisions of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 are not applicable, therefore the termination of tenancy by a simple notice is sufficient. On the question of default also, the trial court recorded finding in favour of the landlord and decreed the suit. On the question of jurisdiction of the small cause court, the trial court decided the issue in favour of the landlord. The tenant-defendant aggrieved by the decree of the trial court, preferred a revision before the revisional court. On the question of applicability of the provisions of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972, the revisional court reversed the finding recorded by the trial court and held that the landlord has failed to demonstrate that the building in question was constructed in the year, 1985, therefore, the provisions of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 are applicable to the building in question. The revisional court found that the provisions of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 are applicable and the defendant had already complied with the provisions of Section 20(4) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972, the view taken by the trial court deserves to the repelled. The revisional court therefore, allowed the revision and set aside the order of the trial court and dismissed the Suit No. 162 of 1997 filed by plaintiff landlord.
2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in view of the Division Bench decision of this Court in Laxmi Kishore and Anr. v. Har Prasad Shukla, 1981 ARC 545, even if the revisional court reversed the finding of the trial court, it ought to have remanded back the matter to the trial court and should not have dismissed the suit as has been done by the revisional court. Learned Counsel for the petitioner therefore, submitted that this writ petition deserves to be allowed on this question and the order of the revisional court deserves to be quashed.
3. Learned Counsel for the respondent tries to justify the order of the revisional court but in view of the Division Bench decision of Laxmi Kishore (supra) I find force in the submission made by counsel for the petitioner.
4. This writ petition is, therefore, allowed and the order of the revisional court dated 29.11.2002 is quashed but in the interest of justice instead of remanding back to the revisional court with the direction to further remand back the matter to the trial court, order of the trial court also for the reasons given by the revisional court is quashed. The matter will now go back to the trial court to be decided afresh in accordance with law after affording opportunity to the parties. Since the suit is of the year, 1997, I direct the trial court to decide the suit within three months from the date of presentation of certified copy of this order.