IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that the construction date of a property can determine the applicability of eviction laws, impacting tenant rights.

JUDGMENT :

(Rakesh Thapliyal, J.) :

1. A suit for arrears of rent, eviction and mesne profit was preferred by the respondent/plaintiff being an owner and landlord of the property in question, registered as SCC Suit No. 21 of 2024, Radhemohan Sharma Vs. Pradeep Kumar against the petitioner/defendant on the ground that the property in question was constructed in the year 1994-95, therefore the provisions of Act No. 13 of 1972 are not applicable and prayed for eviction and arrears of rent.

2. During the pendency of the Suit, an amendment was sought in the plaint to the effect that the property in question is the part of the property of Vasundhara Hotel and Rai Surajmal Bahadur Charitable Trust, Calcutta, was the owner in possession of the same. The plaintiff acquired the property by registered lease deed dated 24.03.1994 and since the building is in dilapidated condition, the plaintiff was granted rights in the lease to get the property vacated from the tenants and further to raise new construction after demolition the old structure and has raised new building and the construction was completed in three phases, in the year 1994-95, 1995-96 and 1996-97.

3. It is submitted that the property in question was leased out to the defendant in the year 1996. In the SCC Suit, the petitioner/defendant filed the written statement, submits that the property is under the tenancy of the defendant and his uncle Satya Prakash and the tenancy of Satya Prakash has never been terminated and the property in question is the part of the huge property which was also in the name of Seth Surajmal Charitable Trust and Dharamshala.

4. It is further contended in the written statement that in the year 2001, the property was recorded in Municipal record as khata No. 44, Mohalla Ramghat. It is also contended in the written statement that the defendant/petitioner and his uncle have paid Rs. 6,75,000/- to the plaintiff on his request for regularization of tenancy and Rs. 50,000/- through cheque on 14.09.1996.

5. It is also contended that the property was recorded in the name of Satya Prakash, the uncle of petitioner/defendant in municipal assessment of 1979. In reply to the amended plaint, the additional written statement was also filed by stating therein that Haridwar Development Authority was constituted under the U.P. Urban Planning Development Act, 1973 and any construction could only be raised after getting sanctioned map from the Development Authority. Thereafter, the plaintiff/respondent filed their replica.

6. It is submitted that as many as 8 points of determination in the suit were framed by the Judge, Small Causes Courts and numerous documentary evidence were filed by the plaintiff including copy of notice dated 05.05.2014 and other relevant documents including rent agreement dated 07.03.2002, original lease receipt, assessment orders, copies of different bills, etc. etc. On the other side, the sole defendant had also filed municipal assessment of 01.04.1979 till 31.03.1988 and other relevant document with photographs.

7. After examining the witnesses and their cross examination, the Judge, Small Causes Courts/Civil Judge (SD), Haridwar, decreed the SCC Suit, filed by the respondent/plaintiff, bearing SSC Suit No. 21 of 2014 vide judgment dated 30.11.2022.

8. Being aggrieved with the judgment dated 30.11.2022, passed by the Judge, Small Causes Courts, the petitioner/defendant preferred SCC Revision under Section 25 of the Provincial of Small Causes Act, 1887, being SCC Revision No. 29 of 2022 and an application under Order 14 Rule 5 read with Section 151 of CPC was moved by the petitioner/defendant, seeking framing of additional issues to the effect, as to whether the plaintiff has got any map sanctioned from the Development Authority in respect of his alleged new construction of the property involved and further, as to whether the documents filed by the plaintiff were in respect of the same property. The Revisional Court dismissed the application vide o