The judgment establishes the importance of the first assessment of a building in determining the exemption period under the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings Act, 1972, and emphasizes the need to interpret the exemption provisions to secure benefits for landlords.

( 1 ) HEARD the learned counsel for the parties.

( 2 ) PERUSED the record,

( 3 ) THE tenant-defendant-revisionist has approached this Court by means of the present revision invoking the jurisdiction envisaged under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887, seeking redress praying for the setting aside of the decree passed in favour of the plaintiff for the eviction of the tenant-revisionist from the premises in dispute with a further direction that subject to the payment of the court fee on the execution side, the plaintiff will be entitled to adjust the amount deposited by the defendant in Court towards the payment of rent and will also be entitled to damages for use and occupation @ Rs. 500 per month till the recovery of possession.

( 4 ) THE facts in brief shorn of details and necessary for the disposal of this revision lie in a narrow compass.

( 5 ) THE plaintiff-respondent had filed the suit giving rise to this revision alleging that the accommodation/building which had been let out to the defendant had been newly constructed in the year 1975. It was claimed that since the plaintiff was a registered religious institution, the provisions contained in the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and eviction) Act, 1972 (U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972) were not attracted to the accommodation/ building which was the subject-matter of the suit as it fell beyond its purview. It was also claimed that the building/accommodation in question had been assessed for the first time under the Municipal Laws on 1. 10. 1978 and on this court also, it had to be taken to fall outside the purview of the aforesaid Act. The suit was filed on 7. 7. 1980. It was claimed that the tenant had not paid the rent due since 1. 12. 1979 in spite of the notice terminating the tenancy which had been issued on 22. 4. 1980.

( 6 ) THE defendant had contested the aforesaid suit on various grounds. It was asserted that since the year 1978 a consolidated amount of Rs. 500 per month was being accepted under single receipts towards the rent of the premises in question which consisted of four shops. It was denied that the shops in dispute had been constructed in the year 1975 asserting that in fact they had been constructed in the year 1963 and in that view of the matter clearly fell within the purview of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972. The defendant further claimed that an amount of Rs. 2,000 had been sent to the plaintiff by two separate money-orders of Rs. 1,000 each on 21. 4. 1980, towards the rent due for the period 1. 12. 1979 to 31. 3. 1980, which had been accepted by an employee of the plaintiff. The validity of the notice was also challenged.

( 7 ) THE trial court considered the oral evidence and documentary evidence brought on record. It was found that the notice terminating the tenancy was perfect and valid in law. The plea that the suit was bad for multifariousness of causes of action was also negatived. The trial court further came to the conclusion that the accommodation/building in suit had to be taken to fall outside the purview of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, as it had been assessed by the Municipal Board for the first time on 1. 10. 1978. It was also held that since the plaintiff was a registered religious institution, on that ground also the provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, could not be deemed to have been attracted taking into consideration the implications arising under Section 2 (2) (1) (f) of the said Act. The trial court after carefully considering the evidence brought on record had disbelieved the defendants version that the municipal assessment relied upon by the plaintiff was not genuine. In fact on an evaluation of the evidence, the claim of the plaintiff that the building in question had been assessed for t