Shashi Kant Gupta, J. - (1.) -The present writ petition is directed against the judgment and order dated 21.5.2003 passed by the Additional District Judge, Court No. 2, Jhansi in SCC Revision No. 108 of 2000 whereby the order dated 28.9.2000 passed by the Judge, Small Causes, Jhansi in SCC Suit No. 53 of 1993 was set aside and the revision was allowed in favour of the respondent.
(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are as follows; The SCC Suit No. 53 of 1993 was filed by the plaintiff-landlord for arrears of rent and ejectment against the petitioner No. 2 and his father Laxmi Narayan in the year 1993. During the pendency of the suit Laxmi Narain expired and was substituted by his heirs and legal representatives viz. petitioner Nos. 1, 3, 4, 5 and 6. In the plaint it was pleaded by the plaintiff that the disputed premises was newly constructed in the year 1984 and the first assessment notice was issued by Nagar Palika on 8.1.1985 under Section 143 of Municipalities Act applicable from the assessment year 1984-85. It was further pleaded that the UP Act No. XIII of 1972 (in short "Act") is not applicable to the disputed premises and it was further pleaded that rent agreement dated 15.4.1985 was also executed between the parties under which the suit property was let out on 16.4.1985 at the rate of Rs. 200/- per month to the petitioner No. 2 and his father. Petitioners in their written statement refuted the allegations made in the plaint and asserted that the suit property is not a new construction and the Act is applicable to the suit property. However, execution of the rent agreement dated 15.4.1985 and the relationship of tenant and landlord was not denied. The trial Court dismissed the suit by order dated 28.9.2000 holding that the provisions of the Act are applicable. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order dated 28.9.2011, the landlord-respondent filed SCC Revision No. 108 of 2000 which was transferred to the Court of Additional District Judge, Jhansi and the revisional Court by order dated 21.5.2003 set aside the order dated 28.9.2000 passed by the trial Court holding that the provisions of UP Act No. 13 of 1972 are not applicable and the petitioners are liable to be evicted. Hence the present writ petition.
(3.) IT was submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the first assessment was made in the year 1975 and the suit was instituted in the year 1993, and therefore the provisions of UP Act No. 13 of 1972 are very much applicable to the disputed premises. He further submitted that neither there is any pleadings nor there is any finding that the new construction was done after the complete demolition of the existing structure. IT is further submitted that the revisional Court has committed manifest error of law in reassessing and recording finding that the property in question is a new construction and the provisions of the Act are not applicable in the matter. Per contra, learned counsel for the landlord submitted that the order was passed by the revisional Court in accordance with law and no fault can be found in the said order. It is further submitted that the revisional Court had held, after perusal of the evidence on record, that the UP Act No. 13 of 1972 is not applicable to the disputed premises. He further submitted that the entire old construction was demolished and a new construction was raised after sanction of map by Nagar Palika and the first assessment notice dated 8.1.1985 was issued for assessment for the year 1984-1985. It was further submitted that the trial Court illegally concluded that it was not a new construction and merely a reconstruction, and assessment for the year 1984-85 was not a first assessment. It was further submitted that the Respondent No. 2 and his father Laxmi Narayan had admitted in the agreement dated 15.4.1985 that property in question is a new construction.;