1996 Supreme(SC) 1963

1997(5) Supreme 280
SUPREME COURT IN INDIA
G.N. Ray and G.B. Pattanaik, JJ.
Suresh Kumar Jain -Appellant
versus
Shanti Swarup Jain & Ors. -Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 2131 of 1996
Decided on 21-11-1996
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant : Dr. A.M. Singhvi, Sr. Advocate, Ciccu Mukhopadhaya, Rakesh K. Sharma, Advocates.
For the Respondent No. : S.S. Jain, Advocate.

Headnote:(i) U.P. Urban Building (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972-Section 2(2)-Exemption from operation of Act-Outer limit of period of exemption in respect of newly constructed building is 10 years-Mechanism for determining the date with reference to which building in question will be deemed to have been constructed-Four distinct alternatives-Period of exemption to be reckoned from the date which is on earliest point to time amongst four deemed dates-Import of expression otherwise recorded used in Explanation I to Section 2(2)-Should be construed in a broad based manner having wide amplitude.

       Held that for mitigating the hardship likely to be meted out to a landlord who has made new construction by incurring substantial expenses, the landlord, in case of tenancy in a newly constructed building has been favoured with exemption of the rigorous of the Tenancy Act in the matter of evicting a tenant inducted in such newly constructed premises. But such exemption is not unfettered but controlled by the provisions of Section 2(2) of the said Rent Act read with Explanation I and proviso to such Explanation I. The outer limit of the period of exemption in respect of newly constructed building is ten years. Such outer limit of the period of exemption has been introduced for balancing the equities between the landlord and tenant. In order to ensure that such exemption in favour of the landlord is not extended indefinitely, the legislature has provided a mechanism for determining the date with reference to which the building in question will be deemed to have been constructed by indicating four distinct alternatives. As such four dates are likely to be different, Legislature, in its anxiety to ensure that the period of exemption is not unjustly extended beyond the period intended, has indicated that such period of exemption is to be reckoned from the date which is on the earliest point of time amongst four different deemed dates as provided for in Explanation I to sub-section (2) of Section (2) of the U.P. Rent Act. (Para 8)

       (ii) U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972-Sections 2(2) and 20-Eviction suit-Appellant, a monthly tenant-Landlord instituted eviction suit in Small Causes Court-Building in which tenant was inducted in 1973 was a newly constructed building-Date on which completion of building is reported to local authority and date on which completion otherwise recorded by local authority were available-Eviction suit instituted in 1990-Eviction suit stands dismissed -Impugned judgment of High Court set aside. (Constitution of India -Art. 136)

       Held : The deemed date of construction as found earlier by the courts below was not approved by this court in allowing the appeal arising out of the earlier special leave petition preferred by the tenant appellant and the High Court was specifically directed to decide the deemed date of construction under Section 2(2) of the Rent Act in the light of the observation made by this Court. In the facts of the case, such determination of deemed date of construction by appreciating and interpreting municipal records and assessment proceedings was not determination of a fact simplicitor but such determination involved a determination of mixed question of law and fact. It is the case of the landlord that after evicting erstwhile tenant, the appellant tenant was inducted for the first time in 1973 at a monthly rental of Rs. 75/-. It is not in dispute that the tenant appellant is in exclusive possession of the shop room in question as a tenant under the respondent landlord. Such shop room is undoubtedly a separate unit of construction and the same is in possession of the tenant appellant. The very fact that the appellant was inducted as tenant in respect of the said shop room clearly indicates that such unit of tenancy had been constructed as a unit fit for occupation at least in 1973 when the appellant was inducted as a tenant in such shop room. The report of the Head Clerk of the Municipality is also of the effect that the shop room is well constructed. The eviction suit was instituted only in 1990. It will be travesty of justice if such suit is decreed in favour of the landlord by allowing the untenable plea that the premises in question was constructed within a period of ten years from the date of the institution of the suit. (Para 11)