- (1.) R. K. Mahajan, J. This a civil revision against the judgment and order dated 19-4-1982 passed by Shri P. K. Jain, IInd Additional District Judge, Ghaziabad in S. C. C. Case No. 24 of 1981. The plaintiff/revisionist filed a suit for eviction with respect to shop No. 108 Navyug Market, Ghaziabad on the ground that building was constructed in the year 1972-73 and U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972 did not apply to this building. The eviction was sought on the grounds of arrears of rent mesne profits with respect to the aforesaid shop. It is alleged that the tenancy of the shop has been terminated after due notice under Section 106 which was served on the defendant/respondent on 27-7-1981 which she received on 30-7-1981. The learned District Judge dismissed the suit on the ground that requirement of Act No. XIII of 1972 i. e. U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act' only) have been complied with and the tenant-respondent is entitled to get benefit of it.
(2.) THE short question in this revision which has been urged by the learned counsel for the revisionist is that the provisions of Section 39 of the Act does not apply in this case as the suit was not pending when the Act came into force i. e. 15-7-1972. THE suit was filed in the lower Court in the year 1981. It has further been submitted by him that finding of the lower court that tenant is entitled for the benefit of Section 39 of the Act is erroneous and illegal and the rent deposited has no affect. I am inclined to agree with this submission of the learned counsel as the lower Court has taken a wrong view. THE bare reading of Section 39 of the Act would clarify this aspect. Section 39 is quoted below: "39. Pending suits for eviction relating to buildings brought under regulation for the first time.- In any suit for eviction of a tenant from any building to which the old Act did not apply, pending on the date of commencement of this Act, where the tenant within one month from such date of commencement or from the date of his knowledge of the pendency of the suit, whichever be later, deposits in the court before which the suit is pending, the entire amount of rent and damages for use and occupation (such damages for use and occupation being calculated at the same rate as rent) together with interest thereon at the rate of nine per cent per annum and the landlord's full cost of the suit no decree for eviction shall be passed except on any of the ground mentioned in the proviso to sub-sec tion (1) or in Clauses (b) to (g) of sub-section (2) of Section 20 and the parties shall be entitled to make necessary amendment in their pleadings and to adduce additional evidence where necessary: Provided that a tenant the rent payable by whom does not exceed twenty-five rupees per month need not deposit any interest as aforesaid. " THE suit was not pending at the time when the Act came into force. THE building was assessed to house tax on 1-4-1972. Let me refer to the definition of Section 2 (2) of the Act. "2 (2) Except as provided in sub-section (5) of Section 12 sub-section (1-A) of Section 21, sub-section (2) of Section 24, Sections 24-A, 24-B 24-C or sub-section (3) of Section 29 nothing in this Act shall apply to a building during a period of ten years from the date on which its construction is completed : Provided that where any building is constructed substantially out of funds obtained by way cf loan or advance from the State Government or the Life Insurance Corporation of India or a Bank or a Co- operative Society or the Uttar Pradesh Avas Evam Vikas Parishad, and the period of repayment of such loan or advance exceeds the aforesaid period of ten years then the reference in this sub-section to the period of ten years shall be deemed to be a reference to the period of fifteen years or the period ending with the date of actual repayment of such loan or advance (including interest), whichever is shorter: Provided further that where construction of a building is completed on or after April 26, 1985 then the reference in this sub-section to the period of ten years shall be deemed to be a reference to a period of (forty years) from the date on which its construction is completed. Explanation I.- For the purpose of this Section A. THE construction of a building shall be deemed to have been completed on the date on which the 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, and where the said dates are different, the earliest of the said dates, and in the absence of any such report, record or assessment, the date on which it is actually occupied (not including occupation merely for the purposes of supervising the construction or guarding the building under construction) for the first time. " , The Legislature gave a holiday for 10 years to new building for the purpose of applicability of this Act so that the building activity does not stop. In fact, in other words 10 years holiday was given in the case of new building so that there is no decrease in the incentives for the construction of the new buildings. The act would be applicable only after completing of life of 10 years in case of new building from the date of construction. This was rationale envisaged by the Legislature so that there is no impediment in the eviction of the building by the landlord. No particular date was fixed for the applicability of the Act and the exemption was given for the 10 years to the newly constructed building. The learned trial Court gave a finding at page No. 3 of the judgment that the building in question was for the first time assessed to house tax from 1-4-1972 and thus the provisions of the Act XIII of 1972 became applicable to the building in suit. The learned court also gave a find ing that the defendant is entitled to benefit of Section 39 of the Act and he has complied the terms of the same and is not liable to be evicted. This reasoning of the trial Court does not sound-good and quite contrary to the intention of the Legislature. Learned counsel for the revisionist has cited 1982 ALJ (SC) 376 Al lahabad - Satya Narain v. 3rd Addl. District Judge, Jalaun. It was observed while giving interpretation of U. P. Urban Building (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Evic tion) Act, 1972 that Act shall not apply during the period of 10 years from the date of its completion. The suit was filed in the year 1981 and as such the Act was not applicable. The suit was also not pending at the time of commencement of the Act. In view of these reasons the revisions petition is accepted and the judgment of the lower court is set aside, and decree of ejectment is passed in favour of the landlord revisionist against the respondent- tenant of the premises in dispute.
(3.) NO order as to cost. Revision allowed. .;