Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 2797 (ALL)

Shashikant Gupta v. Ravi Prakash Chaurasia

2014-09-09

PANKAJ MITHAL

body2014
JUDGMENT Pankaj Mithal, J. Heard Sri Satendra Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt. Rama Goel Bansal, learned counsel for the respondent. 2. The respondent is the owner and the landlord of the premises in dispute, wherein petitioner is a tenant. The tenancy of the petitioner was terminated by notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 and a suit for his eviction was filed. 3. The suit has been decreed by the courts below holding that the provisions of U.P. Act No.13 of 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) are not applicable to it meaning thereby that the petitioner cannot avoid the eviction on the ground mentioned in Section? 20(4) of the above Act. 4. The only argument advanced by counsel for the petitioner is that the courts below have erred in holding that the Act is not applicable. The petitioner has filed quinquennial assessment which proves that the building was assessed to tax for the year 1973 to 1978 and 1978 to 1987. 5. According to explanation 1 to Section 2(2) of the Act the construction of the building shall be deemed to have been completed on the date on which the completion thereof is reported or is otherwise recorded by the local authority and in case the building is subject to assessment the date on which the first assessment thereof comes into existence and in the absence of any such report, record or assessment the date on which it is actually occupied. 6. In the instant case, the completion of the building is not reported or recorded with the local authority. 7. The courts below have concurrently returned findings of fact that the quinquennial assessment produced by the petitioner is not in respect of the property in dispute. 8. In none of the quinquennial assessments paper No. 54Ga and 55Ga the property in assessment is recorded in the name of the respondent. The assessment only in respect of part of house No.43B but not established to be in connection with the disputed premises. 9. Thus, the assessments filed by the petitioner cannot be regarded as the first assessment of the building in question. 10. The assessment only in respect of part of house No.43B but not established to be in connection with the disputed premises. 9. Thus, the assessments filed by the petitioner cannot be regarded as the first assessment of the building in question. 10. In the above facts and circumstances, the date on which the building was actually occupied for the first time would alone be treated as the date of completion of the building for the purposes or applying the provisions of the Act. 11. The petitioner himself has admitted that he occupied the building for the first time in the month of May, 1998. 12. Section 2(2) of the Act as amended vide U.P. Act No.17 of 1985 w.e.f. 26.4.1985 provides that the Act shall not apply to a building for a period of 40 years where its construction is completed on or after 26th April, 1985. 13. Thus, the courts below committed no error of law in taking May 1998, as the date of completion of the building and in holding that the provisions of the Act are not applicable to it. 14. This apart petitioner failed to prove that he had deposited the entire arrears of rent together with interest and? the cost of the suit to avoid the decree of eviction. 15. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, there is no merit in the petition and the same is dismissed with no order as to costs.