Sibghat Ullah Khan, J. - (1.) THIS is tenant's writ petition. Landlord -respondents 3, 4 and 5 filed suit against tenant -petitioner for his eviction and for recovery of arrears of rent. The suit was registered as Suit (SCC suit No. 282 of 1995) on the file of JSCC, Meerut. The admitted rate of rent is Rs. 350/ - per month. In the plaint it was alleged that rent had not been paid with effect from 1.6.1992. It was also stated in the plaint that U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 was not applicable to the building in dispute as ten years' period of exemption from the date of completion of construction had not expired when the suit was filed. The tenant filed written statement denying almost all the allegations of the plaint. Tenant asserted that until December 1993 rent had been paid by him and as a token of receipt of the said rent landlords had put signatures on the register of the tenant which he maintained for his tailoring business purpose as he was carrying on the business of tailoring from the shop in dispute. In the plaint it was stated that even though rent was due with effect from 1.6.1992 still rent was being claimed with effect from 16.12.1993 as the rent prior to the said date had become time barred. Tenant further pleaded that after December, 1993 he had deposited the rent under section 30 of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972. Tenant also pleaded that U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 was applicable to the building in dispute. In the plaint pendente lite and future damages were claimed at the rate of Rs. 800/ - per month. The Trial Court decreed the suit for eviction and recovery of arrears of rent and damages as prayed for in the plaint through judgment and decree dated 31.8.1999. Tenant -petitioner filed revision being SCC revision No. 284 of 1999 which was dismissed by A.D.J./Special Judge N.D.P.C. Act, Meerut on 13.3.2002 hence this writ petition.
(2.) THE first point argued by learned Counsel for the petitioner is regarding applicability of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972. Building in dispute was constructed by Avas Vikas Parishad and its possession was given to the landlords in the year 1984. However, it was assessed to house tax by Municipal Board, Meerut in the year 1986 according to the tenant and in the year 1992 according to the landlords. The Courts below held that even if the version of the tenant -petitioner is taken to be correct that it was assessed for the purposes of house tax for the first time in the year 1986 still suit having been filed in the year 1995, ten years' period of exemption had not expired when the suit was filed. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued that under Explanation 1 to section 2(2) of the Act construction of building shall be deemed to have been completed on the date on which completion thereof is reported to or otherwise recorded by the local authority having jurisdiction and in the case of building subject to assessment the date on which the first assessment thereof comes into effect. Learned Counsel has contended that the word local authority will also include Avas Vikas Parishad and when Avas Vikas Parishad finally allotted and delivered possession of the building in dispute to the landlord -respondents it should have been done after recording the said fact in their records hence that must be taken to be the date of completion of construction. I do not agree with the said contention. In the 'words completion thereof is reported to or otherwise recorded by the local authority having jurisdiction', local authority must be the same to which completion of construction is required to be reported and which is required to record the same. It is preposterous to suggest that Avas Vikas Parishad was required to report the construction to itself. In my opinion the word local authority used in the aforesaid explanation only mean Municipal Authority which is required to pass the map for the construction, keep the record of the construction and to impose the house tax. The other point argued by learned Counsel for the petitioner is that petitioner was entitled to the benefit of section 114 of T.P. Act. Petitioner has not been able to show that there was any such agreement at the start of the tenancy under which landlords were authorised to terminate the tenancy or tenancy could stand determined by forfeiture for non -payment of rent for certain period. In the absence of such an agreement section 114 of the T.P. Act is not applicable. I have discussed this point in detail in V.K. Rastogi v. A.D.J. : 2003 (2) ARC 377.
(3.) THE next point argued by learned Counsel for the petitioner is that in the plaint in para -4 it was mentioned that notice was sent on 1.9.1992 and was served on 2.9.1995. However, the notice which was filed and proved by the plaintiff was dated 1.9.1995. In such situation, it could not be said that the notice which was basis of the suit was proved. Both the Courts below held that it was merely a typing error and notice was dated 1.9.1995 and not 1.9.1992. In my opinion the view of the Courts below is quite correct. Tenant cannot draw any benefit from a typing error in the plaint. There is absolutely no doubt that it was merely a typing error that date of notice was mentioned in the plaint as 1.9.1992 instead of 1.9.1995.;