MAHENDRA PRATAP SINGH CHAUHAN Vs. ANIL KUMAR
LAWS(UTN)-2013-3-83
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
Decided on March 12,2013

Mahendra Pratap Singh Chauhan Appellant
VERSUS
ANIL KUMAR Respondents

JUDGEMENT

V.K.BIST, J. - (1.) CONTROVERSY involved in all the petitions is identical, though the respondents are vary, however the petitioner is one and same and this Court has to adhere and adjudicate upon a common question of law, therefore, common judgment is being passed in all the petitions. Writ Petition No. 720 of 2011 (M/S) shall be the leading case.
(2.) HEARD Mr. Mahavir Singh Tyagi, Advocate for the petitioner and Mr. Lok Pal Singh, Advocate with Mr. Nikhil Singhal, Advocate for the respondents and perused the record.
(3.) BRIEF facts giving rise to the petitions are that the respondents instituted Misc. P.A. Suits (Misc. PA Case No. 10 of 2010, 8 of 2010, 11 of 2010, 7 of 2010 and 9 of 2010), in the Court of Civil Judge (Sr. Div.), Haridwar under Section 27 of U.P. Rent Control Act 13 of 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) with the averment that they are tenants in the premises owned by the petitioner and are paying rent regularly. It is asserted that the petitioner is not permitting them to take the benefit of electricity and water supply and therefore, the petitioner may be directed to give the respondents the said amenities and if he fails to do so, the respondents may be permitted to take independent electricity connection and water supply from the respective departments. Against the said suits, the petitioner filed his objections and disputed the contents of the plaints. He denied the rate of rent and payment of the same. The petitioner raised main objection that the premises in question is newly constructed and first assessment of the same is of the year 1988 and therefore, the provisions of the Act are not applicable. The petitioner also moved separate applications under Order VII Rule 11 -D and Section 151 C.P.C. before the Prescribed Authority with the averment that the provisions of the Act are not applicable in the premises in question, being newly constructed. The respondents filed their objections against the said applications with the submission that the premises in question was constructed in the year 1976 by mother of the petitioner and first assessment was made in the year 1979, therefore, the provisions of the Act are applicable. The petitioner also filed assessment of the premises in question relating to 01.04.1979 to 31.03.1988, 01.04.1988 to 31.03.1994 and from 01.04.2001 onwards. According to the first assessment i.e. 01.04.1997 to 31.03.1988, there were only two rooms shown in the premises and mother of the petitioner Smt. Savitri Devi is shown as the owner. In the subsequent assessment from 01.04.1988 to 31.03.1994, five rooms and one Kothari are shown, which shows that only two rooms are constructed in the year 1979 and the rest were constructed in the year 1988. The learned Prescribed Authority vide his order dated 01.11.2010, rejected the applications of the petitioner holding that the first assessment was done of the year 1979 -1988 and at the time of passing the impugned order, it is not proved that the premises was constructed after 1985 as asserted by the petitioner. Challenging the said order the petitioner preferred revisions (Revision nos. 145/2010, 142/2010, 146/2010, 144/2010 and 143/2010) before the District Judge, Haridwar, which were transferred lateron to the Court of VI Addl. District Judge, Haridwar for hearing and disposal, who vide order dated 18.03.2011 also dismissed the revisions. Against the said two orders, instant writ petitions have been filed. Mr. Mahavir Singh Tyagi, learned counsel for the petitioner raised only one argument with the submission that in the assessment for the period 01.04.1979 to 31.03.1988, only two rooms are shown in the premises, whereas in the assessment from 01.04.1988 to 31.03.1994, five rooms and one Kothari are shown, thus three rooms and one Kothari were constructed in the year 1988. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that Section 2 (2) of the Act provides that, if any building is constructed on or before 26th April, 1985, in that event, the Rent Control Act will be applicable after a period of ten years and proviso second of Section 2 (2) of the Act provides that if the construction is after April, 1985, then Rent Control Act shall apply after a period of 40 years from the date on which its construction is completed. He further referred Explanation I (c) of Section 2 (2) of the Act which provides that if substantial addition made to an existing building that the existing building becomes only a minor part thereof the whole of the building including the existing building shall be deemed to be constructed on the date of completion of the said addition. By relying on aforesaid proviso as well as on the assessment for the period 01.04.1988 to 31.03.1994 learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that since the addition made in the year 1988 was substantial and old part of the building became minor, the Rent Control Act is not applicable in the case.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.