Back
2008 Supreme(All) 1068
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
DILIP GUPTA, J.
AERO INDIA TRAVELS
Versus
MOHAN LAL KHATRI
Decided On : 01 May 2008
The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and application of section 2(2) of the U. P. Urban Buildings Act, 1972, and Explanation I(a) to determine the completion date of a building and its exemption from the Act.
Headnote:
JUDGMENT - S. C. C. Suit No. 46 of 1988 - Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887 - Summary of the Acts and Sections: The court discussed the validity of the notice for termination of tenancy, exemption of the building from the operation of the U. P. Urban Buildings Act, and the determination of the completion date of the building. The court interpreted section 2(2) of the Act and Explanation I(a) to determine the completion date of the building and its exemption from the Act.
Fact of the Case:
The defendant filed a petition to set aside a judgment decreeing the suit and sought quashing of a revision under the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887. The suit involved a dispute over tenancy, termination of tenancy, and exemption of the building from the Act.
Finding of the Court:
The court found in favor of the plaintiff, holding that the tenancy was validly terminated, the building was exempted from the Act, and the plaintiff was entitled to the reliefs claimed.
Issues: The issues included the validity of the notice for termination of tenancy, exemption of the building from the Act, and the relief entitled to the plaintiff.
Ratio Decidendi: The court determined that the completion date of the building and its exemption from the Act should be based on the date of the first assessment of the building, as per section 2(2) of the Act and Explanation I(a). The court also emphasized the need for proper proof of documents and notices submitted as evidence.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the petition and allowed the petitioner three months to vacate the premises, subject to specific undertakings.
( 1 ) -THE defendant of S. C. C. Suit No. 46 of 1988 has filed this petition for setting aside the judgment and order dated 24th May, 2007 by which the suit was decreed and the defendant was directed to handover vacant possession of the premises to the plaintiff within one month and also to pay Rs. 5,030/- towards the arrears of rent. The petitioner has also sought the quashing of the judgment and order dated 3rd April, 2008 by which the revision filed by it under section 25 of Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887 for setting aside the judgment was dismissed.
( 2 ) THE said S. C. C. Suit No. 46 of 1988 had been filed by Mohan Lal Khatri who has been arrayed as respondent No. 1 in this petition. During the pendency of the suit, he sold the disputed house to Satya Narain Singh by a registered sale deed dated 6th September, 2006 and Satya Narain Singh was subsequently impleaded as plaintiff No. 2. It was averred in the plaint that the plaintiff was the absolute owner of House No. 135-A, Rama Devi Chauraha G. T. Road, Kanpur; that the defendant was a tenant of a portion of House No. 135-A consisting of one shop (privately numbered as shop No. 1) measuring 12 ft x 8 ft situate on the ground floor on a monthly rent of Rs. 150/-excluding water tax and sewer tax; that the building was exempted from the provisions of the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) in view of the provisions of section 2 (2) of the Act as the suit had been filed within ten years from the date on which the construction of the building was completed; that a notice dated 27th November, 1987 was sent by the plaintiff to the defendant for termination of tenancy and for payment of arrears of rent and though this notice was served upon the defendant on 2nd December, 1987 but the defendant did not pay the arrears of rent and nor did he handover the vacant possession of the premises.
( 3 ) THE defendant filed a written statement mentioning therein that it was a tenant in a portion of House No. 135-A on a monthly rent of Rs. 100/- and the portion under its tenancy consisted of two rooms, two verandahs and sehan on the ground floor and the plaintiff was not correct in asserting that the defendant was a tenant of only one room or that the rent was Rs. 150/- per month and that the building was not exempted from the operation of the Act. Number of documents were filed by the parties including paper No. 51-Ga by the plaintiff and paper No. 166-Ga by the defendant. Paper No. 51-Ga was the Municipal assessment showing assessment of tax w. e. f. 1st October, 1978 while paper No. 166-Ga showed the assessment of tax w. e. f. 1st April, 1978.
( 4 ) PLAINTIFF No. 1 Mohan Lal appeared as P. W. 1 and stated that he had given the shop, which consisted of one room measuring 8 ft. x 12 ft. , on monthly rent of Rs. 150/ -. He further stated that there was verandah on the front side of the shop and that the first assessment of the building was made on 1st October, 1978 and a copy of the same laid had been filed as paper No. 51-Ga. On behalf of the defendant Smt. Gyanwati Mishra appeared as D. W. 1 and stated that she was the owner of M/s. Aero India Travels and the premises were been taken on rent in the year 1977 for office purposes. She further stated that initially two rooms and two verandahs on the front and back portion were given but subsequently the plaintiff took forcibly possession of one room and one verandah.
( 5 ) LEARNED Judge, Small Cause Courts framed three points for determination, namely : (1) Whether the notice sent by the plaintiff for termination of the tenancy was valid? (2) Whether the building was exempted from the operation of the Act? (3) To what relief was the plaintiff entitled?
( 6 ) THE first point for determination was decided by learned Judge, Small Cause Courts in favour of the plaintiff that the tenancy was terminated by a valid notice. The second point for determin
