S.U.KHAN, J. - (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel for the landlords-respondents who appeared through caveat.
(2.) THIS is tenant's writ petition. Landlords respondents filed suit for eviction against the tenant petitioner in the form of S.C.C. Suit no.1 of 2007. Relief for recovery of arrears of rent from June 2007 till 16.02.2007 was also sought. It was also prayed that arrears of water tax from 01st January 2003 till March 2006 amounting to Rs.3120/- should also be directed to be paid by the defendant tenant. Property in dispute is a shop situate in town Orai, District Jalaun, rate of rent is Rs.550/- per month. It was also alleged in the plaint that map for construction of the shop in dispute was passed by Prescribed Authority in 1990 and construction was completed in the year 1991 hence U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent & Eviction) Act, 1972 was not applicable. In that regard it was also stated that building was assessed for house tax for the first time by Municipal Board Orai in 1992-93. It was also alleged that tenant had sub let the shop in dispute to one Govind Singh. Before filing suit tenancy was terminated through notice under Section 106 of T.P. Act dated 13.01.2007 sent through registered post. Notice was served on 17.01.2007. Tenant filed written statement and contended that rent till May 2007 had been deposited under Section 30 of the Act in Misc. case no.1992 of 2006, that tenant was not liable to pay water tax and that shop in dispute being more than 50 years old, the Act was applicable thereupon. In that regard it was further stated that Nagar Mahapalika concerned assessed the shop in dispute for house tax in 1977-1978. Allegation of sub tenancy was also denied. It was also alleged that Rs.20,000/- had been paid by the tenant to the father of the plaintiffs landlords on 19.06.1997 as security. The courts below found that map of the shop in dispute alongwith adjoining portions of the building was sanctioned on 23.05.1990. Prescribed Authority inspected the construction on 12.10.1991 and found that construction had been made in accordance with sanctioned map. In respect of the adjoining shop constructed at the same time also litigation had taken place uptil High Court and it was held that it was constructed in 1990-91. Writ petition no.13109 of 2007 was decided on 13.03.2007 (photo state copy of the said judgment has been placed on record by learned counsel for the landlord respondent). In the assessment document of 1977-78 to 1991-92 filed by the tenant it was mentioned that property was in the form of Khandhar.Annexure 3 to the writ petition are house tax assessment extracts for the year 1977-78 to 1981-82 and 2002-03 to 2006-07. The house tax during the period 1977-78 to 1981-82 was Rs.2.40 only. Next paper of the said annexure is assessment of 2002-2003 to 2006-2007 during which period house tax was Rs.850/-. Accordingly, it is fully established that altogether new construction was made in 1991. I consider these documents in the writ petition no. 13109 of 2007. In view of these documents courts below rightly held that building was constructed in 1992-93. By virtue of Explanation 1 to Section 2(2) of the Act construction is deemed to be completed on the date on which completion is reported to or otherwise recorded by the local authority or in the absence of these two the date on which first assessment comes into effect. In the instant case local authority recorded the completion in accordance with sanctioned map in October 1991 hence that could be the earliest date of construction. By virtue of second proviso to Section 2(2) of the Act if construction of a building is completed on or after April 26,1985, the Act does not apply for 40 years. Accordingly, I do not find any error in the findings that building was constructed in 1991 hence Act was not applicable.
(3.) IN respect of default courts below held that tenant's application to deposit rent under Section 30 of the Act was dismissed as not pressed. Accordingly, the courts below held that even if Act was applicable, tenant was defaulter and he could not get any benefit of deposit of rent made by him under Section 30 as the said case was got dismissed by him as not pressed. Alongwith supplementary affidavit order dated 06.10.2007 dismissing the case under Section 30 of the Act has been filed. On the margin of the said annexure it was mentioned that as opposite parties i.e. the landlords had filed suit for eviction against applicant i.e. tenant hence applicant was not pressing the application. On the basis of the said statement the case was dismissed on 06.10.2007. However question of sub letting and liability to pay water tax were decided in favour of the tenant.;