HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 12521 of 2025 Court No. - 36 HON'BLE ROHIT RANJAN AGARWAL, J. 1. Petitioner, before this Court, is a tenant of the shop let out by the father of the plaintiff-respondent in the year 1984-85. Initially, the shop was let out for the monthly rent of Rs.100-150/- as the shop was in dilapidated condition which has been fallen down and according to plaintiff, he had reconstructed the shop in the year 1994-95. The tenant petitioner was inducted again in the year 1994-95 @ Rs.2100/- per month. 2. Default was committed in payment of rent, as such, suit for eviction was filed. The petitioner had taken a plea that the suit is not barred by provisions of Act No.13 of 1972, and the benefit of Section 20(4) of the Act should be extended to the him. 3. The trial Court while deciding issues no.4 and 5, which was in respect as to the applicability of Act No.13 of 1972 and whether the benefit of Section 20(4) can be extended to the tenant- petitioner, decided the same against petitioner on the ground that though the plaintiff has not adduced any document to demonstrate the fact that the construction was made in the year 1994-95, nor any assessment order was passed, but only on the basis of pleading of the plaintiff, the issue was decided against the defendant. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the trial Court should not have recorded finding that Act No.13 of 1972 is not applicable and the construction has been made in the year 1994-95, without any material on record. 5. Sri Syed Mohammad Nazar Bukhari, learned counsel appearing for respondent-landlord submits that the pleading is there that the construction Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Syed Mohd. Fazal, Sr. Advocate Counsel for Respondent(s) : Syed Mohammad Nazar Bokhari Jameel Ahmad .....Petitioner(s) Mahboob Ali .....Respondent(s) has taken place in the year 1994-95, and it is an admitted case that the petitioner was a tenant at a monthly rent of Rs.100/- which was enhanced thereafter to Rs.2100/- per month, as such, Act No.13 of 1972 is not applicable. 6. I have heard respective counsel for the parties and perused the material on record. 7. From perusal of the order of trial Court, it transpires that issues no.4 and 5 have been decided by the trial Court in a very cursory manner and without recording as to how the trial Court had arrived at finding that the Act No.13 of 1972 was not applicable when the plaintiff himself has not filed any document to substantiate that the construction was made in the year 1994-95 and the assessment was made in the said year. The finding recorded by the trial Court has been affirmed by the revisional Court. 8. In view of the said fact, finding recorded as to issues no.4 and 5 is only set aside and the matter is remitted back for reconsideration by the trial Court on the short point only. Parties may adduce their evidence, if they need, within a period of one month from today. The trial Court shall make every endeavour to decide issues no.4 and 5, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of three months from the date of production of certified copy of this order. 9. Writ petition stands partly allowed. October 15, 2025 SK Goswami A227 No. 12521 of 2025 2 (Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,J.) Digitally signed by :- SHIVAKANT GOSWAMI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Digitally signed by :- SHIVAKANT GOSWAMI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad