AVANISH KUMAR MITTAL Vs. SMT. KAMLESH JAIN (DEAD) AND OTHERS
LAWS(ALL)-2015-12-327
HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Decided on December 21,2015

Avanish Kumar Mittal Appellant
VERSUS
Smt. Kamlesh Jain (Dead) And Others Respondents

JUDGEMENT

Suneet Kumar, J. - (1.) The tenant-applicant is assailing the judgment and decree dated 5 May 2015 passed by the Revisional Court arising from the order of Small Causes Court at Saharanpur in proceedings for eviction and arrears of rent.
(2.) The respondent-plaintiff instituted a suit being Smt. Kamlesh Jain v. Avanish Kumar Mittal, SCC Suit No. 532 of 2008 for eviction, arrears of rent and damages. The defendant-applicant contested the suit by filing written statement. The trial court framed six issues and issue no. 2 pertains to whether the provisions of U.P. Act 13 of 1972 is applicable to the disputed premises, the issue was decided against the applicant-tenant and in favour of the respondent-landlord holding that the provisions of Act 13 of 1972 is not applicable on the disputed premises. The suit was decreed on 9 February 2011. Aggrieved, the applicant preferred a revision which was dismissed on 5 May 2015.
(3.) Learned counsel for the applicant has confined his submission to the finding returned by the courts below on issue no. 2 i.e., as to whether the provisions of U.P. Act 13 of 1972 is applicable on the disputed premises. It is contended on behalf of the applicant that the provision of U.P. Act 13 of 1972 is applicable to the disputed premises as the building being an old building, further, it is sought to be urged that Explanation 1 to Section 2 of the Act of 1972 provides that the assessment is of the building as a whole, sub-clause (c) of explanation 1 would provide that where such substantial addition is made to an existing building only then the existing building becomes a minor part of the whole building, therefore, the existing building shall be deemed to have been constructed on the date of completion of the said addition. It is, therefore, contended that the building in which the tenanted shop is situated was assessed prior to 1984, in view of the provisions, mere minor construction raised/constructed subsequent to 26 April 1985 would not mean the building was outside the purview of the Act of 1972.;


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