Murlidhar, J. - (1.) This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution has been filed by an applicant for allotment of a shop challenging the order of the Rent Control and Eviction Officer and the revisional order of the District Judge by which they held that the shop in dispute was a new construction and, therefore not covered by U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 (hereinafter called the Act.)
(2.) The broad facts are undisputed and are clear from the two reports of the Senior Inspector, Rent Control, dated 26-12-1975 and 23-3-1977 copies of which are annexures T and 6 to the petition. It appears from these reports that formerly there existed a long Baithaka approximately 30 to 32 feet by 9 feet or so. The landlord converted it into four shops by adding three partition walls and changing the front wall to install separate shutters for each shop. Thereafter he let out the individual compartments as shops. The shop for which the petitioner applied was No. 2 and, therefore, a shop of which three walls were newly constructed and only the back wall and the roof were old. On this date the authorities below held that this was a new construction.
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to Clause (c) of Explanation (1) to Section 2 (2) of the Act which runs as follows:- "(c) where such substantial addition is made to an existing building that the existing building becomes only a minor part thereof the whole of the building including the existing building shall be deemed to be construction on the date of completion of the said addition." It is contended that since an old Baithaka was used to carve out the shops, the said shops cannot be treated to be a new building unless the additional constructions made can be found to be the major part of the building after the alterations. This is said to be not so in the instant case because the roof and at least three outer walls are the same and only partition walls and front shutters have been installed. I am inclined to agree with the contention that the words substantial addition in Clause (c) take within their ambit not merely the addition of wholly new construction increasing the area of the building but also the alteration of the existing building into a new accommodation by remodelling it which may include the use of some parts of the old structure. The test for determining whether the altered construction should be regarded as old or new under Clause (c) would be whether after considering the area added the alterations effected and the cost incurred in alterations vis-a-vis the presumptive cost of the old building utilised and the form and structure of the building after the alterations it can be said that the parts utilised remained a major part of the altered structure. The purpose of the landlord before and after-alterations may also be relevant for appreciating the change in form and structure. No single factor can be decisive. Looked at from this point of view, I cannot find any infirmity in the view that where a long room used as a Baithak has been converted into four shops approximately 8 x 41/2 each by making changes as above the shops do not remain parts of an old construction so as to be governed by the Act.;