The applicability of U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 and the availability of the benefit of Section 39 are determined based on the timing of building construction and suit filing, as well as the date of commencement of the Act.

Tarun Agarwala, J.—The plaintiff filed a suit against the defendant for recovery of arrears of rent and for ejectment from the premises in question. The plaintiff alleged that he is the landlord and that the defendant is the tenant in the premises in question and that the plaintiff gave a notice terminating the tenancy of the defendant on the ground that the arrears of rent had not been paid. It was also stated that the building was constructed in the year 1977 and therefore, the building was not ten years old and therefore the provisions of U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 was not applicable (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The defendant contested the suit and denied the allegations made by the plaintiff and contended that the building in question was constructed in the year 1972-73 and the provisions of U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 was applicable. The defendant further alleged that he was not a defaulter and that the landlord refused to accept the rent and, accordingly, the defendant deposited the rent under Section 30 of the Act.

2. The Judge Small Cause Court after determining the points in issue, decreed the suit, holding that the defendant was in arrears of rent and that the notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act was a valid notice and had validly terminated the tenancy of the tenant. The Judge Small Cause Court further held that the building in question was constructed in the year 1977 and was occupied by the tenant in the year 1978 and, therefore, the provisions of U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 was not applicable. The trial court further held that the benefit of Section 39 of the Act was not available to the tenant.

3. Aggrieved by the decision of the Judge Small Cause Court, the petitioner has filed the present revision under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act.

4. Heard, the learned counsel for the parties.

5. The learned counsel for the tenant submitted that during the pendency of the proceedings before the trial court, the building in question completed 10 years of its existence and, therefore, the Act became applicable and the tenant was entitled to seek the protection under the Act. The tenant, therefore, could not be evicted from the premises in question, except in accordance with the provision of Section 20 of the Act. The learned counsel further submitted that the benefit of Section 39 of the Act should also be given to the tenant. In support of his submission, the learned counsel has relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Vineet Kumar v. Mangal Sain, AIR 1985 SC 817.

6. In my view, the submission raised by the learned counsel is devoid of any merit and is liable to be rejected.

7. Section 2 (2) of the Act reads as under :

“Except as provided in sub-section (5) of Section 12, sub-section (1A) of Section 21, sub-section (2) of Section 24, Sections 24A, 24B, 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.

(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 surviving the construction or guarding the building under construction) for the first time.”

8. It is clear that U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 will not apply to a building during the period of 10 years from the date on which its construction is completed. The Explanation to this section makes it apparently clear that the period of ten years will start from the date of the first assessment and in the absence of such as