Back
1997 Supreme(All) 1527
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
S.R. SINGH, J.
Manager, Punjab National Bank and Others - Appellant
Versus
District Judge and Others - Respondent
C.M.W.P. No. 24301 of 1996
Decided On : 06-01-1997
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : K.L. Grover
For the Respondent: N.S. Chauhan
The term 'building' in Section 2(1)(g) of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 means the entire residential or non-residential roofed structure, including any land, garages, and outhouses appurtenant to it, furniture supplied by the landlord, and fittings and fixtures for the more beneficial enjoyment of the building. Where a building is let out in parts, the sum total of the monthly rent of all the parts, including taxes payable by the tenants, determines whether the building is exempt from the Act.
Headnote:
UP URBAN BUILDINGS (REGULATION OF LETTING, RENT AND EVICTION) ACT, 1972 - SECTION 2(1)(G) - SECTION 3(I) - SECTION 10(1) - SECTION 22 - LIMITATION ACT, 1963 - SECTION 3 - SECTION 5 - SECTION 29(2) - INTERPRETATION OF 'BUILDING' - EXEMPTION FROM ACT - RENT ENHANCEMENT - APPEAL - LIMITATION - CONDONATION OF DELAY - APPLICABILITY OF LIMITATION ACT PROVISIONS.
Fact of the Case:
Landlord applied for rent enhancement under Section 21(8) of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972. Prescribed Authority allowed the application and enhanced the rent from Rs. 2,000 to Rs. 14,533.33. Tenant appealed, but the appeal was dismissed as barred by limitation. Tenant filed a writ petition challenging the enhancement order and the dismissal of the appeal.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the term 'building' in Section 2(1)(g) of the Act means the entire residential or non-residential roofed structure, including any land, garages, and outhouses appurtenant to it, furniture supplied by the landlord, and fittings and fixtures for the more beneficial enjoyment of the building. The court further held that where a building is let out in parts, the sum total of the monthly rent of all the parts, including taxes payable by the tenants, determines whether the building is exempt from the Act. The court also held that the provisions of the Limitation Act, including Section 3 and Section 5, apply to appeals under the Act by virtue of Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act.
Issues: 1. Whether the building in question was exempt from the Act under Section 2(1)(g) due to the amendment introduced by Section 2 of Uttar Pradesh Act No. 5 of 1995. 2. Whether the appellate court was justified in dismissing the appeal as barred by limitation.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court interpreted the term 'building' in Section 2(1)(g) of the Act to mean the entire residential or non-residential roofed structure, including any land, garages, and outhouses appurtenant to it, furniture supplied by the landlord, and fittings and fixtures for the more beneficial enjoyment of the building. The court held that where a building is let out in parts, the sum total of the monthly rent of all the parts, including taxes payable by the tenants, determines whether the building is exempt from the Act. 2. The court held that the provisions of the Limitation Act, including Section 3 and Section 5, apply to appeals under the Act by virtue of Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act.
Final Decision: The court quashed the appellate order and directed the appellate court to entertain the appeal and decide it on merit after affording due opportunity to the parties to lead evidence on the question of whether the monthly rent of the building exceeds rupees two thousand and the market value of the building under tenancy.
S.R. SINGH, J.
1. Prescribed Authority allowed the landlord's application u/s 21(8) of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (in short the Uttar Pradesh Act No. 13 of 1972) and enhanced the monthly rent of the building under tenancy of the Petitioner from Rs. 2,000 to Rs. 14,533.33 vide order dated 30.12.1995. The appeal preferred against the said order having been dismissed as barred by lime by the District Judge, Agra vide order dated 30.5.1996, the tenant-Petitioner has filed the instant writ petition.
2. Sri. K.L. Grover, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner urged that as a result of Clause (g) of Section 2(1) of Uttar Pradesh Act No. 13 of 1972 inserted by Section 2 of Uttar Pradesh Act No. 5 of 1995 the building in question stood exempted from the purview of the Act with effect from 26.2.1994 and consequently, proceeds the submission, the Prescribed Authority had no Jurisdiction to pass the impugned order dated 30.12.1995 enhancing the monthly rent of the building. Sri. Grover urged that 'building' means the building as a whole and when a building is let out in part, it is the sum total of rent of the entire building so let out which would determine whether the building let out on monthly rent exceeding Rs. 2,000 and not the rent of a part of the building which is under the tenancy of a tenant. It was also urged that the rent would include the tax payable by a tenant u/s 7 of the Act. Sri. Ravi Kant appearing for the Respondent, landlady refuted the submission made by Sri. Grover and placed reliance on a decision of this Court in Chunnu Lal v. 2nd Additional District Judge, Allahabad and Ors. 1975 AWC 930, wherein it has been held that the word 'building' under the Act has a special meaning and not the meaning ordinarily understood and that the term 'building' does not mean the entire super-structure but means only a portion of superstructure which is Independently liable to be dealt with for purposes of letting out, that is to say, a building under the Act means only an independent lettable accommodation whether singly situated or as a part of a building complex.
3. Having carefully considered the submissions aforestated, I veer around the view that the word 'building' has been used in Clause (g) of Section 2(1) of the Act in the sense of the building as a whole having one municipal number and where a building has been let out in parts, it is the cumulative monthly rent of the whole building so let out which would determine whether the monthly rent of the building exceeds rupees two thousand and subject to any contract in writing to the contrary, the monthly rent of the building shall include the tax liability fastened upon the tenant by Section 7 of the Act. In other words, where a building is let out in parts, it would be exempted from the application of the Act in case, the sum total of the monthly rent including taxes payable by the tenant of the parts so let out exceeds rupees two thousand.
4. The term 'building', as defined in Section 3(i) of Uttar Pradesh Act No. 13 of 1972, means a residential or non-residential roofed structure and includes-
(i) any land (including any garden), garages and outhouses appurtenant to such building;
(ii) any furniture supplied by the landlord for use in such building ;
(iii) any fittings and fixtures affixed to such building for the more beneficial enjoyment thereof.
5. The word 'building' used in Clause (g) of Section 2(1) of the Act means the entire residential or non-residential roofed structure and includes any land, garages and outhouses appurtenant to such building ; any furniture supplied by the landlord for use in such building and/or any fitting for the more beneficial enjoyment thereof. In Zenobia Bhanot Vs. P.K. Vasudeva and another, AIR 1996 SC 601, it has been held that in cases where the building is let out in parts "the parts so let out will form part of the building itself". The observations made by the Supr
