- (1.) S. U. Khan, J. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as Sri Y. S. Vohra, learned Counsel, who has appeared for landlord-respondent through caveat.
(2.) LANDLORD filed eviction suit against tenant-petitioner in the form of S. C. C. Suit No. 13 of 2007 before J. S. C. C. , Bulandshahar. In the plaint, it was stated that U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 was not applicable to the building in dispute as it was newly constructed in the year 1987 and assessed for the first time for the house tax in the year 1988-1989. Property in dispute is a shop, rent of which is Rs. 610/- per month. LANDLORD's version was found to be correct, hence suit for eviction was decreed on 7. 4. 2008. Against the said judgment and decree, S. C. C. Revision No. 11 of 2008 was filed, which was dismissed by A. D. J. , Court No. 3, Bulandshahr through judgment and order dated 22. 7. 2008, hence this writ petition. In July, 1987, an agreement was entered into in between petitioner and defendant for letting out the shop by the respondent to the petitioner. In the said agreement, it was mentioned that shop was constructed in 1987 itself. The main argument of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that tenant petitioner asserted and landlord-respondent admitted that prior to the peti tioner, once cycle repairer was tenant of the shop in dispute. However, it is mentioned in the judgment of the Revisional Court that petitioner could not state that for how much time shop in dispute was in tenancy occupation of cycle repairer. Landlord- respondent stated that cycle repairer occupied the shop in dispute as tenant only for 2-4 months.
(3.) MOREOVER, building in dispute was assessed for house tax for the first time w. e. f. 1988-1989. By virtue of section 2 (2) of the Act, a building which is constructed on or after 26. 4. 1985 is exempted from the operation of the Act for 40 years. Accordingly, I do not find least error in the findings of the Courts below that Act was not applicable to the building in dispute. Accordingly, writ petition is dismissed.;