Sibghat Ullah Khan, J. - (1.) INSPITE of sufficient service under Chapter VIII, Rule 12 of the High Court Rules as per office report dated 23.7.2005, no one appeared on behalf of the respondents No. 2 and 3, the tenants. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner -landlord.
(2.) LANDLORD -petitioner filed S.C.C. Suit No. 44 of 1974 against the tenant -respondents for eviction. Landlord asserted that building had been constructed on 1.4.1967, hence the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 was not applicable. In the plaint, ground of default in payment of rent had also been taken. It was also stated in the plaint that the tenants were liable to pay water tax which they had not paid since 1.2.1973. Initially the suit was decreed. However, on revision the High Court remanded the matter to the Trial Court. After remand the Trial Court decreed the suit on 13.11.1980. The Trial Court stated that the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 was applicable to the building in dispute as it had been constructed before 15.7.1972. The suit was decreed on the ground of default in payment of rent. The Trial Court held that tenants had not deposited the amount of water tax which was included in the rent by virtue of section 7 of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972. Against the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court, the tenant -respondents filed S.C.C. Revision No. 486 of 1980 which was allowed by Ist Additional District Judge, Meerut on 5.12.1985. The said judgment and order of the Revisional Court is under challenge in this writ petition. The Supreme Court in case of O.P. Gupta v. Dig. V.P. Gupta, AIR 1982 SC 1230, has held that the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 is applicable to the buildings which were constructed even before 15.7.1972 the date on which the said Act was enforced, if the period of 10 years from the date of construction has expired. In that very authority it was also held that if at the time of filing of the suit, the period of 10 years had not expired then U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 did not become applicable if the said period of 10 years expired during pendency of suit. The Revisional Court has held that even if the version of the landlord that the building was constructed in the year 1967 is taken to be correct, still the Rent Control Act became applicable in the year 1977 as the matter was pending at that time.
(3.) IT was held in Vineet Kumar's : AIR 1985 SC 817 : 1984 (10) ALR 115 (SC) case by the Supreme Court that if 10 years period expired during the pendency of suit, then the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 became applicable. This view of the Supreme Court by two Hon'ble Judges was directly in conflict with the earlier view of the Supreme Court by 3 Hon'ble Judges in Om Prakash case (supra). Afterwards the authority of Vineet Kumar was dissented, held per incuriam and over -ruled in several cases by the Supreme Court. All these authorities are discussed by the Supreme Court in Kishan v. Manoj Kumar : AIR 1998 SC 999.;