OM PRAKASH GUPTA GOPAL KRISHNA ANDLEY SATYA NARAYAN SURESH CHAND Vs. DIG VIJENDRAPAL GUPTA:VTH ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE KANPUR:IIIRD ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE JALAUN:GULAM GHISTI
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
OM PRAKASH GUPTA,GOPAL KRISHNA ANDLEY,SATYA NARAYAN,SURESH CHAND
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE,DIG VIJENDRAPAL GUPTA,VTH ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE,KANPUR,GULAM GHISTI
Click here to view full judgement.
Misra, J. -
(1.) The first two appeals by special leave and the third by certificate and the special leave petition raise a common question, of law and, therefore, we propose to dispose of them by a common judgment.
(2.) The pattern of facts in all these cases is similar. We, therefore, set out the facts of Civil Appeal No. 1314 of 1378 to bring out the point for, consideration in these matters.
(3.) The appellant Om Prakash Gupta is a tenant of a shop on a monthly rent of Rs. 150/- The respondent-landlord filed a suit for the eviction of the tenant on the ground that the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (Act 13 of 1972 and hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') did not apply to the shop and the tenant was liable to eviction. The Judge, Small Cause Court, Mainpuri decreed the suit on the finding inter alia that the construction of the shop in suit was completed in the year 1967 and that ten years having not elapsed since then, the provisions of the Act did not apply to the case The defendant went up In revision under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act against the judgment and decree of the trial Court. but the same was substantially dismissed. The defendant thereupon filed a revision under S. 115 of the Civil Procedure Code in the High court which came up for hearing before a learned single Judge who remitted the following issue to the trial Court:
"On what date was the construction of the building in dispute completed within the meaning of S. 2 (2) of the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, and deemed to have been completed as contemplated by Explanation I (a) thereto."
The Judge, Small Cause Court by his order dated 26th of November, 1977 returned the following finding:
"The construction of the disputed shop will be deemed to have been completed on the date, of the first assessment i.e. 1-4-68 within the meaning of Section 2 (2) of the U. P. Urban Buildings Act, 1972."
The finding, returned by the trial Court was sought to be challenged on behalf of the tenant on the ground that the date of occupation should be taken to be the date of completion of the construction of the shop and not the date of the first assessment. In Tilak Raj v. Sardar Devendra Singh (1976) 2 All LR 721, a learned single Judge of the same High Court had the occasion to consider S. 2 (2) of the Act. He held:
"It is apparent from this provision that for purposes of this Act, a building is to be deemed to be constructed, if it is subject to assessment, on the date with effect from which the first assessment is made. It is immaterial whether the building was constructed actually prior to that date or it had come into occupation prior to that date. The law recognised for the purposes of this Act, the date of assessment as the date of the completion of the building. There is thus no error in the judgment of the Court below." The learned single Judge before whom the revision In the instant case came up for hearing doubted the correctness of the above decision. He, therefore, referred the case to a Division Bench.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.