The applicability of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings Act was denied due to evidence of new construction, leading to lawful eviction under the Transfer of Property Act.

JUDGMENT :

Ajit Kumar, J.

1. Heard Sri Achyut Jee, learned counsel for the petitioner.

2. By means of present petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution, petitioner has questioned the judgment and decree passed by the Judge Small Causes dated 15.12.2021 in SCC Case No. 24 of 2013 directing for eviction of the petitioner from the demised premises and also for arrears of rent and damages. The said order having been unsuccessfully challenged in revision. The final judgment passed in revision dated 2nd November, 2024 in SCC Revision No. 45 of 2021 is also under challenge before this Court.

3. The main plank of arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner is that findings returned qua issue no. 2 as to the applicability of Act no. 13 of 1972 is against evidence on record and hence perverse. It is also submitted that on the question of deposit under Section 30 that was made by the petitioner under Act No. 13 of 1972 has been negatived only on the ground that Rule 21(5) of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Rules, 1972 was not followed. This According to learned counsel for the petitioner as far issue regarding rent deposited under Section 30 runs contrary to the issue no. 1 and hence judgment and decree deserves to be reversed.

4. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and having perused the records, as far as issue no. 2 is concerned, I find there to be no dispute as such to jural relationship between petitioner and landlord respondents. The petitioner is more aggrieved by the decision made by trial judge as to issue no. 2 by which Act No. 13 of 1972 has been held as not applicable to the premises in question.

5. I have gone to the findings returned by the trial judge on issue no. 2 and I find that he has considered threadbare with pleadings raised by the parties, evidence led and statements recorded. The Court has considered that landlords have been able to set up a valid plea of the shop being a new construction made sometime in the year 2002 as municipal assessment record had been produced, which clearly established that assessment of the municipality concerned of the shop in question was made in the year 2002-03 and hence there being no rebuttal as such of this document, the said document deserved to be relied upon in view of relevant provisions contained for the purpose of determination of construction of building vide explanation I(a) to subsection 2 of Act No. 13 of 1972. The Court also proceeded then to consider the testimony of the DW 1 and DW 2 in which they claimed that shop was not constructed in the year 2002, rather it was an old construction. The basic reliance had been placed by these defence witnesses upon the document of registration of the shop of the year 1990-95. This document showed according to learned counsel for the petitioner that construction was of the year 1990 and at-least prior to 2002, however, in the testimony that was recorded before the trial court DWs 1 and 2 admitted that they had no other document except this document to demonstrate that construction was prior to the year 1985. They also could not place any material before the trial court that construction was of the prior year 2002 and hence trial court proceeded to hold that construction was a new construction after the year 1985, and therefore, the Act No. 13 of 1972 would not be applicable.

6. Considering the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner on the above findings returned by the trial court, I find that at one place trial court considered referred to a statement that new building that came into existence was part of existing building being house no. 1995 situate at Shivaji Nagar, Kanpur Nagar Road, Jhansi. Even if it is said that this shop was in existence in the old building and the landlords had admitted this fact that it was part of the building, it got converted into new construction followed by new assessment. I find that only fact pleaded by the