S. P. SRIVASTAVA, J.

( 1 ) HEARD the learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Bharatji Agrawal, learned counsel for the landlord respondent No. 1.

( 2 ) PERUSED the record.

( 3 ) FEELING aggrieved by a decree of his eviction from the premises in dispute and recovery of arrears of rent and damages for the use and occupation pendente lite and future passed by the Judge Small Cause Court; the petitioner tenant filed a revision under S. 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act which has been dismissed by the Revisional Court, he has now approached this Court for redress seeking the quashing of the same.

( 4 ) IT appears from the record that the landlord respondent had filed the suit seeking ejectment of the petitioner tenant from the premises in dispute asserting that the building of which the premises in suit formed a part was constructed a new in the year 1973 after demolishing the old constructions and was assessed for the first time by the Nagar Palika, Etah in the year 1981. The assessment being effective from 1-4-1981. The suit having been filed on 19/12/1990, the first assessment of the newly constructed building being effective from Ist April, 1981, it was claimed that the provisions of the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the act) were not at all attracted and in view of the ten years period stipulated in the proviso to S. 2 (2) of the aforesaid Act having not expired by the date of the filing of the suit, the building from which the eviction of the petitioner tenant was sought fell clearly out of the purview of the said Act. The claim of the plaintiff in regard to the exemption of the building in question from the operation of the Act was denied by the defendant petitioner who asserted that the building as it stood in the year 1972 was never demolished and continued to remain in existence without any alteration and further that it could not be deemed to have been exempted as claimed.

( 5 ) IN his deposition before the trial court, the plaintiff stated that after obtaining a decree of eviction of the sitting tenant in the old building in original suit No. 441 of 1969, the said building was completely demolished and erased a new building was reconstructed in its place after getting the requisite building plan sanctioned from the Nagar Palika. It was further stated that the newly constructed building was assessed to house tax with effect from 1-4-1981. In support of his submission about reconstruction of the building, the plaintiff brought on record the sanctioned building plan for the construction of the new building and other relevant documents. The plaintiff also stated that the reconstruction of the building was completed by March, 1973.

( 6 ) THE tenant petitioner in support of his case besides examining himself, examined Jagadish Singh, a clerk of the Nagar Palika, Etah. In his deposition, the defendant claimed to be the tenant of the premises in dispute since 1970. In his cross examination, he had stated that to his knowledge, the building in question had never been assessed by the Nagar Palika. He also stated that he was not at all aware of any decree of eviction of Asharfi Lal, his uncle and as to whether he was ever evicted in execution of the decree as claimed by the plaintiff. He further stated that the premises in dispute was more than 10 years old and was continuing as it existed in the year 1970. Sri Jagadish Singh, who was examined as a defendant witness No. 2 by the petitioner tenant, stated that the first assessment of all the buildings which had been newly constructed subsequent to the year 1970 within the limits of Nagar Palika, Etah was made effective from 1/04/1981. He also stated that the assessment which had been finalised during the period 1976 to 1978 was made effective from 1/04/1981.

( 7 ) THE order passed by the Assessing Authority dated 2-2-1978 was brought on record showing that the assessment in respect of the premises

Click Here to Read the rest of this document