JUDGMENT By means of this writ petition, moved under Article 226 read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners (landlords) have sought writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 19.02.2000, passed bys the revisional court (Addl. District Judge, Dehradun), in S.C.C. Revision No. 43 of 1996, whereby said court has affirmed the judgment and decree passed by the judge, Small Cause Court/Civil Judge (Junior Division), Dehradun, in S.C.C. Suit No. 85 of 1972, dismissing the suit of ejectment against the tenants. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the affidavits, counter affidavit and rejoinder affidavit filed on behalf of the parties. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiffs/petitioners are landlord of building situated in Village Daishwala, Doiwala, District Dehradun, in which the defendants/respondents No. 3 to 5 were tenants at the rate of Rs. 28/- per month. The petitioners’ case is that provisions of U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (for short U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972) were not applicable to said village, as such, the petitioners/plaintiffs served notice dated 19.09.1972 on the respondents/defendants, terminating their tenancy under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. But, the defendants failed to vacate the premises, therefore, the S.C.C. Suit No. 85 of 1972 was filed on 01.11.1972 before the Judge, Small Cause Court/Civil Judge (Junior Division), Dehradun, under the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887 (as amended in the State of Uttar Pradesh), for ejectment of the defendants. 4. The defendants contested the suit before the trial court and filed their written statement. They challenged the validity of the notice allegedly served by the plaintiffs. It is further pleaded in the written statement that provisions of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972, have been made applicable in Doiwala w.e.f. 23.01.1973. It is further pleaded in the written statement filed on behalf of the defendants that before the present round of litigation, Suit No. 522 of 1964 was filed against the defendants, and in said suit it was held that provisions of U.P. Act No. 3 of 1947 i.e. United Provinces (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 1947, were applicable. When U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 came into force, it was made applicable to the municipal areas only. When U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 came into force, it was made applicable to the municipal areas only. On its basis it is pleaded that before the provisions of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 were made applicable on 23.01.1973 to Doiwala area, provisions of U.P. Act No. 3 of 1947, remained in force. Consequently, it is pleaded by the defendants that they were not liable to be evicted and entitled to protection under Section 20(4) of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972. 5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the trial court framed following issues on 15.05.1975 : i) Whether, the provisions of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 are applicable to the property in suit. If not, its effect? ii) Whether, the notice served on behalf of the plaintiff is bad in law. If so, its effect? iii) To what relief, if any, the plaintiff is entitled? On 27.06.1994, following additional issues were framed by the trial court : iv) Whether, the defendant No. 1 is entitled to the benefit of Section 39 of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972? v) Whether, the suit is barred by principle of resjudicata? vi) Whether, the suit is barred, as alleged in Para 3-A of the written statement? On behalf of the plaintiffs oral evidence were adduced and P.W.1 Shyam Sundar and P.W.2 Krishan Gopal were got examined. On behalf of the defendants D.W.1 Harkesh Chandra, D.W.2 Jagdish Singh, D.W.3 Sohan Singh, D.W.4 Nain Singh and D.W.5 Kishori Lal, were got examined. After considering the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the parties and after hearing them, the trial court dismissed the suit with the finding that the notice served by the plaintiff were bad in law. However, the trial court held that provisions of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 were not applicable to the building on the date when the suit was instituted. It further held that the suit was not barred by the principle of resjudicata. 6. Aggrieved by said judgment and decree dated 26.10.1996, passed by the trial court [Judge, Small Cause Court/Civil Judge (Junior Division), Dehradun], the landlords (plaintiffs) filed S.C.C. Revision No. 43 of 1996, before the revisional court. It further held that the suit was not barred by the principle of resjudicata. 6. Aggrieved by said judgment and decree dated 26.10.1996, passed by the trial court [Judge, Small Cause Court/Civil Judge (Junior Division), Dehradun], the landlords (plaintiffs) filed S.C.C. Revision No. 43 of 1996, before the revisional court. Additional District Judge, Dehradun, who hear the parties in said revision, dismissed the revision with the finding that the Notification by which provisions of U.P. Act No. 03 of 1947 were enforced to Doiwala area in the year 1949, continued and remained in enforce under Section 24 of the U.P. General Clauses Act, 1904, and as such, the tenancy could not have been terminated by simply serving a notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. Hence, this writ petition was filed by the plaintiffs before the Allahabad High Court. The writ petition is received by transfer to this Court under Section 35 of the U.P. Re-organization Act, 2000 (Central Act No. 29 of 2000), for its disposal. 7. Before further discussion it is pertinent to mention here that the provisions of the United Provinces (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 1947 (U.P. Act No. 03 of 1947) were applicable to the building in question vide Notification dated 19.04.1949. It is also not disputed that Doiwala area was not within the municipal limits at the time when the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, came into force. The U.P. Act No. 03 of 1947 was repealed as provided under Sectin 43 of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972. It is not disputed that the U.P. Act no. 03 of 1947, expired its life otherwise also w.e.f. 30th of September 1972, as it was a temporary Act, which was extended from time to time and got no extension after 30th of September, 1972. It is pertinent to mention here that present suit was filed on 01.11.1972 i.e. after the expiry of the U.P. Act No. 03 of 1947, and before the provisions of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 were made applicable to Doiwala area. It is pertinent to mention here that present suit was filed on 01.11.1972 i.e. after the expiry of the U.P. Act No. 03 of 1947, and before the provisions of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 were made applicable to Doiwala area. In such circumstances, the plaintiffs (landlords) for terminating the tenancy of the defendants, took shelter of Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, whereunder, the notice was served on the defendants and tenancy was terminated as defendants failed to pay the rent due from them. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioners argued that the trial court as well as the revisional court have erred in law in holding that the notice served by the petitioners was bad in law. It is further contended that since the provisions of the U.P. Act No. 03 of 1947 were inapplicable after 30th of September 1972, and provisions of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 were not applicable (as held by the trial court itself), there was no illegality in the service of notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. I agree with the learned counsel for the petitioners that the trial court as well as the revisional court have erred in law in equating the areas outside municipal limits with that within such limits. Sub-Section (3) of Section 1 of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972, provides that the Act shall apply to every city, municipality, notified area and town area of the Uttar Pradesh, Admittedly Doiwala area in the year 1972 was none of the four kinds of municipal areas. 9. Mr. Bindesh Kumar Gupta, learned counsel for the respondents drew attention of this Court to Section 24 of the U.P. General Clauses Act, 1904, which provides that where any enactment is repealed and re-enacted by a Uttar Pradesh Act, with or without modification, then, unless it is otherwise expressly provided, any appointment, or statutory instrument or form, made or issued, under the repelled enactment shall, so far as it is not inconsistent with the provisions re-enacted, continue in force, and be deemed to have been made or issued under the provisions so re-enacted, unless and until it is superseded by any appointment, or statutory instrument or form made or issued under the provisions so re-enacted. I have gone through said provision of law. I have gone through said provision of law. This Court is of the view that the benefit of Sec. 24, U.P. General Clauses Act is available only in respect of municipal areas, which are covered under the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972, as only in respect of such; areas it can be said that re-enactment was made on 15.07.1972, when the U.P. Act XIII of 1972 came into force in the State. But it did not cover the rural area or the areas which are not specially notified. Special Notification in respect of Doiwala area came only on 23rd of January 1973. That being so, between 30th of September 1972 when the U.P. Act No. 03 of 1947 died its natural death (as it stood not only repealed on 15.07.1972, but also not extended after 30th of September 1972) and 23.01.1973 when provisions of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 were made applicable to the building in question, neither the provision of the U.P. Act No. 03 of 1947 were applicable to the building nor the provisions of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 were applicable. In such a situation, in the Doiwala area, the only provision applicable for terminating the tenancy was Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. As such, there was no illegality in the notice served by the plaintiffs on the defendants terminating the tenancy. 10. As far as the benefit of Section 39 of the U.P. Act No.1 13 of 1972 is concerned, it is sufficient to say that the Allahabad High Court vide its judgment and order dated 18th September, 1992, passed in Writ Petition No. 1853 of 1981, filed by Harkesh Chandra (defendant/tenant) has already held that the defendant is not entitled to the benefit under Section 39 of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972. It is pertinent to mention here that the provision of Section 39 of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 were applicable in respect of suits which were pending on 15.07.1972 i.e. the date of commencement of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972. The present suit was instituted only in November 1972. The said decision of Allahabad High Court between the parties is also reported in Allahabad Rent Cases, 1993 (1) 21 (Harkesh Chandra Vs. Additional District Judge, Dehradun). The present suit was instituted only in November 1972. The said decision of Allahabad High Court between the parties is also reported in Allahabad Rent Cases, 1993 (1) 21 (Harkesh Chandra Vs. Additional District Judge, Dehradun). Also, the defendants were not entitled to the protection under sub-section (4) of Section 20 of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972, as no rent was deposited under that section before the trial court. Mere raising a plea in the written statement does not help the defendants. 11. For the reasons as discussed above, this Court is of the view that the courts below have erred in law in dismissing the suit and the revision. Therefore, the writ petition is allowed. The judgment and decree dated 26.10.1996, in S.C.C. suit No. 85 of 1972, passed by the trial court and the impugned order dated 19.02.2000 passed by the revisional court are set aside. The suit for ejectment of the defendants stands decreed. However, the defendants are allowed three months’ time from today to vacate the premises in question, where after, the plaintiffs shall be at liberty to get the decree executed. No order as to costs.