- (1.) S. U. Khan, J. At the time of hearing no one appeared for the respon dents, hence only the arguments of learned Counsel for the petitioner were heard.
(2.) THIS is tenant's writ petition. Landlord-respondent No. 3 Sri Jamal Uddin instituted S. C. . C. Suit No. 154 of 1989 against tenant-petitioner for evic tion from the tenanted accommodation and for recovery of arrears of rent. It was stated in the plaint that property in dispute had been constructed in the year 1983, hence U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 was not applicable thereupon. By virtue of section 2 (2) of the Act, the Act does not apply to buildings for a period of 10 years in case building was con structed prior to April, 1985. It was further stated that rate of rent was Rs. 80/-per month. Petitioner-tenant filed written statement asserting that rate of rent was Rs. 15/- per month and house in dispute had been constructed more than 10 years before filing of the suit hence the Act was applicable. Copy of relevant page of assessment register Nagar Palika, Meerut was filed before the Trial Court. In the said copy it was mentioned that it was for the period from April, 1976 to March, 1998. In the said copy it was also mentioned that according to the order of sub-committed dated 3. 2. 1992 the tax was payable w. e. f. 1. 4. 1981. On the basis of the said document building would be deemed to have been con structed on 1. 4. 1981 by virtue of Explanation I to section 2 (2 ). According to the said explanation normally the date on which first assessment of building comes into effect is to be taken as date of construction. However Trial Court held that rate of rent was not Rs. 80/- as alleged by landlord but Rs. 15/- as alleged by the tenant. Accordingly suit for eviction was decreed by additional J. S. C. C. , Meerut through judgment and decree dated 28. 5. 1993. Against the said judgment and decree tenant-petitioner filed S. C. C. Revision No. 156 of 1993 which was dismissed by VIIIth A. D. J. , Meerut on 18. 8. 1994, hence this writ petition. The Revisional Court fully approved the findings of the Trial Court. I do not find least error in the findings of the Courts below regarding non applicability of the Act at the time of filing of the suit. By virtue of aforesaid explanation to section 2 (2) of the Act, the date with effect from which first assessment comes into effect is to be taken as date off first assessment. Explanation 1 (a) to section 2 (2) is quoted below: "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 a building subject to assessment, the date on which the first assessment thereof comes into effect, and where the said dates are different, the earli est of the said dates, and in the absence of any such report, record or assess ment, 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: Provided that there may be different dates of completion of construc tion in respect of different parts of a building which are either designed as separate units or are occupied separately by the landlord and one or more tenants or by different tenants.
(3.) THERE is one more aspect of the matter which requires consideration. On 10. 7. 2007. Hon. Rakesh Tiwari, J. , passed an order in this writ petition direct ing petitioner to pay Rs. 1, 000/- per month towards rent to the landlord and fur ther directed that after four months an affidavit of compliance shall be filed. No such affidavit has been filed meaning thereby that the enhanced rent has not been paid. Non-payment of rent is itself a ground for dismissal of the writ petition vide Carona Ltd. v. M/s. Parvathy Sivamiwthan and Sons, AIR 2008 SC 187 (Para 45) and R. K. Shukla v. Sudhrist Narain Anand 2008 (72) ALR 612 (SC), Civil Appeal No. 7238 of 2005 (decided on 12. 5. 2008) Accordingly, there is no merit in the writ petition, hence it is dis missed: Tenant-petitioner is granted six months' time to vacate provided that: 1. Within one month from today tenant files an undertaking before the J. S. C. C, to the effect that on or before the expiry of aforesaid period of six months he will willingly vacate and handover possession of the property in dispute to the landlady-respondent; 2. For this period of six months, which has been granted to the tenant-petitioner to vacate, he is required to pay Rs. 6, 000/- (at the rate of Rs. 1, 000/- per month) as rent/damages for use and occupation. This amount shall also be deposited within one month before the J. S. C. C. , and shall immediately be paid to the landlady-respondent; and 3. Within one month from today tenant shall deposit entire decretal amount due till July, 2007 before J. S. C. C. , for immediate payment to land lords-respondents.;