The central legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the provisions of Act No. 13 of 1972 and the sufficiency of notice served in a rent and eviction dispute.

Vivek Kumar Birla, J.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Sanjay Kumar Pundir, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

2. Present writ petition has been filed seeking setting aside judgment and order dated 27.1.2017 passed by Judge, Small Causes Court as well as judgment and order dated 28.8.2017 passed by the Additional District Judge, F.T.C. Saharanpur in Suit No. 51 of 2013, Guru Vachan v. Manoj Kumar @ Chimma. A further prayer in the nature of mandamus directing the court below to allow the application under Order 6, Rule 17 read with Section 151 C.P.C. Paper No. 16 Ga of the petitioner in S.C.C. Suit No. 51 of 2013, Guru Vachan v. Manoj Kumar @ Chimma pending in the court of Judge, Small Causes Court has also been made.

3. The suit filed by the plaintiff-respondent for rent and eviction was allowed by the Judge, Small Causes Court vide judgment and order dated 27.9.2016. The revision filed by the petitioner against the same was also dismissed vide judgment and order dated 28.8.2017. The case of the plaintiff was that the shop was on rent for a limited period upto 31.10.2013 pursuant to the rent deed dated 16.12.2012 and in the rent deed it was clearly mentioned that the construction is new and the provisions of Act No. 13 of 1972 are not applicable. A notice was given to the petitioner which he has refused to accept. Again another notice was given to the petitioner which again was refused and as such service was deemed to be sufficient in the present case.

4. The tenant's case was that the shop was old and the provisions of Act No. 13 of 1972 are applicable in the present case. In support of his argument assessment receipts from the years 1975 to 1980, 1980 to 1986 and one 1991 to 1997 were filed wherein it was mentioned that prior to 1991 the property was old construction, however, in the assessment of 1991-1997 the shop was mentioned for the first time in the year 1994. The agreement between the party is not in dispute.

5. The agreement between the party is not in dispute wherein it has been categorically mentioned that the construction is new and the provisions of Act No. 13 of 1972 are not applicable. The trial court framed five issues and on Issue no. 1 it was found that there is relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and on Issue no. 2 notice of the assessment of the year 1991-1997 wherein apart from residential house the shop was also mentioned and the specific case of the landlord was that the shop was constructed in the year 1990 and was assessed for the first time in the year 1991. The third issue regarding default in payment of rent was also decided against him. The fourth issue regarding damages to the property was also decided against him. The fifth issue regarding sufficiency of notice to the petitioner was decided against the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner has deliberately refused to accept the notice. All such findings of fact were affirmed by the revisional court.

6. By drawing attention to Annexure-2 to the writ petition submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the assessment for the years 1975-1980 and 1980-1986 clearly indicates that the construction is old and therefore the provisions of Act No. 13 of 1972 would apply in the present case.

7. I have perused the findings recorded by the courts below as well as judgment of the revisional court. I find that the findings are based on the documentary evidence on record. A perusal of the assessment for the years 1975-80 indicates that the property has been recorded as house and the name of Sri Raj Kumar has been recorded for the purpose of own residence. The assessment of the years 1980-86 shows that the name of Sri Guruvachan Singh, landlord-respondent herein has been recorded and his own occupation has been shown in the house and his residence has been shown. It is in the assessment years of 1991-97 apart from house two shops have been mentioned and the name of owner is Guruvachan Singh,