IMPORTANT POINT
The issuance of a second notice to quit waives the first notice under Section 113 of the Transfer of Property Act, and the applicability of the Uttar Pradesh Act No. 13 of 1972 is contingent upon the timing of property assessments relative to the cut-off date for applicability.

JUDGMENT :

Hon'ble Neeraj Tiwari, J.

1. Heard Sri R. K. Mishra, learned counsel for the revisionist and Sri Prateek Sinha, learned counsel for the respondent.

2. By means of S.C.C. Revision No. 29 of 2020, revisionist has challenged the impugned judgement and decree dated 20.01.2020 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Court No. 20, Kanpur Nagar in S.C.C. Suit No. 70 of 2017 (Pranveer Singh Vs. Jitendra Kumar Rajpoot).

3. By means of S.C.C. Revision No.27 of 2020, revisionist has challenged the impugned judgement and decree dated 20.01.2020 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Court No. 20, Kanpur Nagar in S.C.C. Suit No. 72 of 2017 (Pranveer Singh Vs. Madhukar Pandya).

4. Since the common question of law and facts are involved in both the revisions, therefore, with the consent of counsel for parties, both the revisions are being decided together by a common judgment.

5. Learned counsel for the revisionists-defendants submitted that revisionists are the tenants of plaintiff-respondent since the year 2000 and paying rent at the rate of 1250/-p.m. including taxes. He has received a notice of eviction dated 16.06.2014 stating therein that the provision of Uttar Pradesh Act No. 13 of 1972(hereinafter, referred to as, ‘Act, 1972’) are applicable to the house in question. The revisionists have replied the said notice vide his reply dated 02.07.2014. Revisionists have further received second noticed dated 03.09.2015 for arrears of rent and to vacate the accommodation with the specific averment that Act, 1972 is applicable. Revisionists have also replied the said notice stating therein that rent is being deposited and is paid up to 31.12.2015.

6. Lastly, he received third notice dated 13.05.2017 under Section 106 of Transfer of Property Act, 1882(hereinafter, referred to as ‘Act, 1882’) and in the said notice a new stand was taken by the respondent-plaintiff that wrongly in the notice dated 16.06.2014 in para no. 6, it was mentioned that the provisions of Act, 1972 are applicable and stated for the first time in the notice dated 13.05.2017 that the provisions of Act, 1972 would not be applicable. The revisionists-defendants submitted their reply dated 29.05.2017. Based upon the aforesaid notices, respondent-plaintiff has filed SCC Suit No. 70 of 2017 & SCC Suit No. 72 of 2017 against the revisionists-defendants respectively seeking a decree of eviction as well as recovery of arrears of rent.

7. He firmly submitted that once the applicability of Act, 1972 is admitted by the respondents-plaintiffs in the notices dated 16.06.2014 and 03.09.2015, it would be treated admission on the part of the respondents-plaintiffs and he cannot take U-turn in the third notice dated 13.05.2017 that Act, 1972 would not be applicable. Therefore, revisionists-defendants are entitled for benefit of Section 20 (4) of Act, 1972, as they are regularly depositing the rent @ Rs. 1250/- per month. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the revisionists has placed reliance of judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Avadh Kishore Dass Vs. Ram Gopal and Others, 1979 0 AIR (SC) 861.

8. He next submitted that first assessment of house in question was made in the year 1979 which is prior to the cut of date i.e. 26th April, 1985, therefore, under the facts of the case Act, 1972 would be applicable. He also pointed out that learned Judge has relied upon the second assessment which was made on 11.10.1985 and has held that Act, 1972 shall not be applicable. Leaned counsel for the revisionists-defendants firmly submitted that once the first assessment has taken place in the year 1979, the Act, 1972 would be applicable.

9. He lastly submitted that once there is admission about the applicability of Act, 1972 in notices dated 16.06.2014 and 03.09.2015 and further, first assessment took place in the year 1979, Act, 1972 would be applicable and there is no scope of adjudication on this point.

10. He next submitted that Suit No. 70 of 2017 & 72 of 2017 have