In rent control matters, the landlord-tenant relationship is crucial, and the date of first assessment is determinative of the applicability of the rent control act.

V.K. Birla, J.

1. Heard Sri Rahul Agarwal, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri P.K. Jain, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Abu Bakht, learned counsel for the respondent.

2. Present petition has been filed for setting aside the order dated 8.8.2018, passed by the District Judge, Meerut in S.C.C. Revision No. 34 of 2016, Manoj Kumar Vs. Suman Prakash and judgment and decree dated 28.7.2016, passed by Judge Small Causes Court, Meerut in S.C.C. Case No. 26 of 2007, Suman Prakash vs. Manoj Kumar.

3. By the impugned judgment dated 28.07.2016 passed by the Judge Small Causes Court, Meerut, the S.C.C. suit filed by the plaintiff-respondent herein was allowed by the trial court. S.C.C. Revision filed by the tenant-petitioner herein against the same was dismissed by the lower revisional court vide impugned judgment dated 8.8.2018.

4. The S.C.C. suit was filed by Suman Prakash, plaintiff-respondent herein for rent and eviction with the allegation that notice dated 21.12.2006 served on the defendant-petitioner was received by him on 23.12.2006, but the same was not replied. It was further claimed that the shop in dispute was assessed for the first time by the Nagar Palika Parishad, Mawana in the year 1991 and as such the provisions of U.P. Act 13 or 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) were not applicable. The suit was contested by the defendant-petitioner herein by filing written statement on the ground that, in fact, Suman Prakash HUF is the owner and landlord and Suman Prakash is the Karta of the same. It was claimed that since the property is of HUF, therefore, the suit filed by Suman Prakash in his personal capacity is not maintainable; the provisions of the Act are applicable in the shop in question as the shop was constructed prior to 1985 and it is incorrect that it was assessed for the first time in the Year 1991; it was claimed that since his father Atar Singh was the tenant in the shop which was in the shape of 'Dukariya' and only repair has been carried out by putting one cement linter after removing wooden "kariyan" and since the provisions of the Act are applicable, as such he is entitled for benefit of deposit made under Section 20(4) of the Act.

5. The trial court framed 7 issues. On issue no. 1 it was found that there is a landlord-tenant relationship between the parties and the suit was maintainable at the instance of Suman Prakash. On issue no. 2 it was found that the defendant has committed a default in payment of rent. On issue no. 3 it was found that rate of rent is Rs. 500/- p.m. On issue no. 4 it was found that the notice dated 21.12.2006 given under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act was duly received by the defendant on 23.12.2006 which contains his receiving on receipt paper no. 8-Ga and as such there was valid service of notice. On issue no. 5 it was found that the map was sanctioned on 23.6.1987 and the first assessment of the building after construction of 12 shops was made in the year 1991. therefore, the provisions of the Act are not applicable. On issue no. 6 benefit of deposit made under Section 20 (4) of the Act was denied as it had already been found that the provisions of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 are not applicable in the present case. On issue no. 7 the plaintiff was found to be entitled for the relief claimed and accordingly, the suit was allowed.

6. S.C.C. Revision filed by the defendant-petitioner herein was dismissed by the lower revisional court affirming the judgment of the trial court.

7. Submission of Sri Rahul Agarwal, learned counsel for the petitioner is that the suit was filed by the plaintiff-respondent in his individual capacity whereas in replication as well as in his cross-examination Suman Prakash, PW-1 has admitted that it is the property of HUF and he is the Karta of the said HUF, hence once there is an admission to this effect, the suit was not maintainable at the instance of Suman Prakash in his individual capacity as there is vast difference between ind