Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 812 (ALL)

NARAIN GUPTA v. GUR BACHAN SINGH SALUJA

2002-07-08

U.K.DHAON

body2002
U. K. DHAON, J. ( 1 ) HEARD Sri Amit Chandra, learned counsel for the revisionist and Sri H. S. Jain who has put in appearance on behalf of the opposite parties. ( 2 ) THE petitioner has approached this Court against the judgment and order dated 14. 9. 1999 by which the suit preferred by the opposite parties was partly decreed by the IVth Additional district Judge, Kheri. The brief facts of the case are that the opposite parties are the landlord of the premises in dispute and the petitioner was the tenant from 1. 6. 1989 on a monthly rent of Rs. 1,000 which was later on increased to Rs. 1,100 per month. A notice under Section 106 of the transfer of Property Act was sent by the landlord to the tenant in which the arrears of rent and damages were claimed. The said notice was duly served upon the petitioner. After the service of the notice, neither the arrears of rent were paid to the opposite parties nor the premises was vacated. The opposite parties thereafter filed a suit for arrears of rent and ejectment which was registered as S. C. C. Suit No. 4 of 1995. The said suit was contested by the petitioner who filed written statement anr" on the pleading of the parties, the trial court framed the following issues for determination : (i) Whether the tenancy is covered by the provisions of the U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972? (ii) Whether the tenant did not pay the rent as averred by the plaintiff and what was the rate of rent originally agreed upon? (iii) If so, what relief the plaintiff is entitled to? ( 3 ) BOTH the parties in support of their cases filed oral and documentary evidence. The trial court, after considering the entire evidence on record, partly decreed the suit of the opposite parties for arrears of rent and ejectment. ( 4 ) SRI Amit Chandra, learned counsel for the revisionist, submits that the building was completed in September, 1984 as per the statement made by the opposite party No. 1. He further submits that the trial court has wrongly come to the conclusion that the building was completed on 16th march. 1985 and has illegally decreed the suit of the opposite parties. He further submits that the trial court has wrongly come to the conclusion that the building was completed on 16th march. 1985 and has illegally decreed the suit of the opposite parties. ( 5 ) SRI H. S. Jain, learned counsel for the opposite parties submits that there is no illegality in the impugned judgment and order passed by the trial court and the trial court has rightly held that the building was completed on 16. 3. 1985. He further submits that in spite of the notice neither the premises was vacated nor the arrears of rent was paid to the landlord and as such the trial court has rightly decreed the suit. ( 6 ) I have considered the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. ( 7 ) THE landlord has submitted an application before the Nagar Palika for the assessment of the building on 16. 3. 1985 and the building was assessed from 27. 7. 1985. The trial court has rightly held that the U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 is not applicable. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the opposite party No. 1 has stated that the building was completed in september, 1984 cannot be read in isolation as the application was moved on 16. 3. 1985 for assessment of the building. Explanation 1 (a) of Section 2 (2) provides that the constructions 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 building subject to assessment, the date on which the first assessment thereof comes into effect. In the instant case, the first assessment was made with effect from 27. 7. 1985. ( 8 ) THERE is no illegality in the impugned judgment and order passed by the Additional District judge, Kheri. The revision petition is devoid of merits. It is accordingly dismissed. The interim order granted by this Court is hereby vacated. ( 9 ) IN the circumstances, there will be no order as to costs. .