- (1.) Heard Sri B.Dayal, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Iqbal Ahmad, learned counsel for the respondent No.3.
(2.) A suit for recovery of arrears of rent and ejectment i.e. S.C.C. Suit No.11 of 1987 was filed by the petitioner on the ground that the shop in question was damaged in a riot which took place in 1978 and thereafter it was reconstructed by the landlord himself at his own cost hence Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (U.P. Act No.13 of 1972) (hereinafter referred to as "Act, 1972") was not applicable in view of Section 2(2) of Act, 1972 wherein it is provided that Act, 1972 would not be applicable to a new construction for a period of 10 years. The Courts below have held that question whether cost of construction was incurred by landlord or tenant is wholly irrelevant for the purpose of Section 29 of Act, 1972 which is for the benefit of tenant and irrespective of the fact who got the reconstruction made, mere fact that the shop was reconstructed in 1978 it shall not make the Act inapplicable when the tenant was occupying premises in question before enactment of Act, 1972 and before such reconstruction, the Act, 1972 was applicable to the shop in question. It is contended that these finding of Courts below are patently illegal. Sri Dayal contended that the Courts below have committed patent error in construing Section 29 of Act, 1972 which does not apply to a case where reconstruction has been made by the landlord himself incurring cost on his own and is confined to those cases only where reconstruction of damaged accommodation has been made by tenant incurring his own expenses.
(3.) Learned counsel appearing for the respondent however defended the impugned orders on the basis of reasoning contained therein and said that here is a case where the shop was damaged completely for something not attributable to the tenant and therefore factum of new construction should not be taken a pretext to deprive him protection under Act, 1972. He thus submitted that in exercise of powers under Article 226/227 this Court may not interfere in this matter.;