Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Naseemuddin, J.
VIRENDRA PRASAD NIGAM - Appellant
Versus
KALIKA SWAROOP - Respondents
Civil Revision 111 Of 1999
Decided On : 09/29/1999
U. P. URBAN BUILDINGS (REGULATION OF LETTING, RENT AND EVICTION) ACT, 1972 - SECTION 2 - EXEMPTIONS FROM OPERATION OF ACT - BUILDING CONSTRUCTED WITHIN TEN YEARS OF FILING SUIT NOT COVERED BY ACT - TENANCY DETERMINED UNDER SECTION 106 OF TRANSFER OF PROPERTY ACT - SUIT FOR POSSESSION DECREED.
Fact of the Case:
Plaintiff filed a suit for possession after ejectment of the defendant from a building, arrears of rent, and mesne profits. The defendant claimed that the building was governed by the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (Act No. 13 of 1972), and the suit should be dismissed.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the building was constructed in 1979, which was within ten years of the filing of the suit. Therefore, the Act did not apply to the building, and the tenancy was rightly determined under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. The suit for possession was decreed.
Issues: Whether the building was governed by the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the Act did not apply to the building because it was constructed within ten years of the filing of the suit. The court relied on Section 2 of the Act, which exempts buildings from the operation of the Act during a period of ten years from the date of completion of construction.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the revision petition and upheld the decree of the trial court.
( 1 ) THIS revision has been filed under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Causes Courts Act against the judgment and decree dated 27. 8. 99, passed by Sri S. P. Singh, IVth Additional district Judge. Barabanki in S. C. C. Suit No. 3 of 1984. whereby the suit of the plaintiff-opposite party for possession after ejeclment of the defendant-revisionist in respect of the building in suit detailed in the plaint as well as for arrears of rent and mesne profits was decreed with costs.
( 2 ) LEARNED counsel for the revisionist as well as learned counsel for the opposite party were heard. This suit was earlier decided on 30. 5. 90 by the then IVth Addl. District Judge. Barabanki, acting as Judge Small Causes Court and the plaintiffs suit was, decreed at that time also for ejectment and for recovery of arrears of rent in respect of the shop in dispute. The defendant at that time also filed Civil Revision No. III of 1990 which was decided by this Court on 18. 11. 98. The case was remanded to the Court below for decision afresh in the light of observations made in the body of the judgment. The learned trial court had to take into consideration the question relating to the age of construction in accordance with the provisions of Section 2 of the Act. After the remand order the trial court recorded additional evidence again and decided the suit with particular reference to the remand order. The only question which is crucial to the present case is whether the building in suit is governed by the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of letting. Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (Act No. 13 of 1972) (hereinafter referred to as the Act ). If the building is governed by the Act, then the suit of the plaintiff was to be dismissed and if it is not so governed, then the suit shall be held to have been rightly decreed. Therefore, it has to be seen as to whether the building in suit is covered by the Act or not. In the remand order, reference was made by this Court to the provisions of Section 2 which are relevant to the case. The provisions relevant to the case are as follows :
"2. Exemptions from operation of Act.-- (1) Nothing in this Act shall apply to the following : (a ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (b ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (c ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (d ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (e ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (f ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (g ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (h ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Except as provided in subsection (5) of Section 12, subsection (1a) of Section 21, subsection (2) of Section 24, Sections 24a. 24b and 24c or sub-section (3) of Section 29. nothing in this act shall apply to a building during a period of ten years from the date on which its construction is completed : provided. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Provided. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Explanation I.--For the purposes of this Section : (a) the construction of a building shall be deemed to have been completed on the date on which the completion thereof is reported to or otherwise recorded by the local authority having jurisdiction, and in the case of building subject to assessment, the date on which the first assessment thereof comes into effect, and where the said dates are different, the earliest of the said dates, and in the absence of any such report, record or assessment, the date on which it is actually occupied (not including occupation merely for the purposes of supervising the construction or guarding the building under construction) for the first time: Provided that there may be different dates of completion of construction in respect of different parts of a building which are either designed as separate units or a
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
