- (1.) THIS revision, preferred under Sec tion 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887, is directed against the judgment and decree dated 27-04-1987, passed by learned Judge, Small Causes Court/addl. District Judge, Dehradun in Small Causes Court Suit No. 26 of 1983, whereby the said suit for arrears of rent and ejectment of the defendant from the shop in suit is de creed.
(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that the Plaintiff/respondent is the landlady of the property No. 1/107, New Jain Market, Vikas Nagar, Dehradun. In said property in one of the shop defendant/revisionist was the tenant. As per the plaint case, provisions of the U. P. Urban Building (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (for brevity, hereinafter, the Act No. 13 of 1972) were not applicable to the building on the date of the institution of the suit as the construction was new. The plaintiff vide notice dated 22- 05-1983 termi nated the tenancy of the defendant af ter 30 days of service of notice, and claimed arrears of rent in respect of which alleged default was committed by the defendant. Said notice was served under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. The defendant con tested the suit and filed the written statement before the trial court, in which it is pleaded that the building is old and provisions of the Act No. 13 of 1972 are applicable. The defendant has pleaded that the shop was constructed in the year 1968, as such it had already completed ten years when the suit was instituted in the year 1983. The defend ant further denied having committed any default in payment of rent. It is al leged by the defendant/revisionist be fore the trial court that he has depos ited the rent due in the court of Munsif, Dehradun under Section 30 of the aforesaid Act as the landlady refused to accept the same. The trial court formulated fol lowing points of determination while deciding the case: 1. Whether, the provisions of U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 are not ap plicable to the shop in question? If so, its effect? 2. Whether, the defendant commit ted default in payment of rent? 3. Whether, the notice terminating the tenancy was invalid? To what relief, if any, the plain tiff is entitled? 4. After recording the evidence and hearing the parties, the trial court found that the building in question was the construction of the year 1975 and, as such, provisions of the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 were not ap plicable to the same. It further found that there is no infirmity in the notice served on the defendant under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. Holding that the defendant has committed default in payment of rent and his tenancy stood terminated from 30th day of the service of notice, the suit was decreed for arrears of rent and ejectment. Aggrieved by the same, this revision has been preferred by the de fendant.
(3.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. It is argued on behalf of the re visionist that the shop in question was the construction of 1968 and not of the year 1975, and as such, the trial court has erred in law in holding that the pro visions of the Act No. 13 of 1972 are inapplicable to the building in question. To arrive at the correct conclusion as to the year of construction, it is pertinent to mention here Explanation I to Pro viso to sub-section (2) of Section 2 of the aforesaid Act, which provides as under: "explanation 11].- For the pur poses of this section, - (a) the construction of a building shall be deemed to have been com pleted on the date on which the completion thereof is reported to or otherwise recorded by the local au thority having jurisdiction, and in the case of a building subject to assessment, the date on which the first as sessment thereof comes into effect, and where the said dates are differ ent, the earliest of the said dates, and in the absence of any such re port, record or assessment, the date on which it is actually occupied (not including occupation merely for the purposes of supervising the con struction or guarding the building under construction) for the first time: Provided that there may be different dates of completion of construction in respect of different parts of a building which are either designed as separate units or are occupied separately pay the landlord and one or more tenants or by different tenants;" In view of aforesaid provision, since the house in question is subject to the assessment of the municipal tax, it is relevant to examine the extracts of the house tax assessment filed by the par ties to arrive at the correct conclusion as to the dates of construction of the building.;