Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 3697 (ALL)

Abhilasha Khare v. Shakuntala Tripathi

2014-12-10

PANKAJ MITHAL

body2014
JUDGMENT Pankaj Mithal,J. Heard Sri Maanas Bhargava, learned counsel for the defendant revisionist (tenant) and Sri S.K. Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the plaintiff respondent No.1 and Sri R.P. Tiwari, learned counsel for the plaintiff respondents No. 2 and 3. 2. The suit of the plaintiffs respondents (landlords) for the eviction of the tenant from the house in dispute has been decreed by the impugned judgment and order dated 04.01.2014. 3. In assailing the aforesaid judgment, the only point which has been raised is with regard to the applicability of the provisions of U.P. Act No.13 of 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Rent Act) upon the said house. 4. According to the counsel for the defendant revisionist (tenant) the construction of the house in dispute is prior to 21.03.1982 or 18.03.82 whereas according to the plaintiffs respondents (landlords) the completion of the house would be deemed to be of the year 1991-92 when it was first assessed to house tax. 5. The court below has accepted the version of the plaintiffs respondents (landlords) and in the absence of the report of the completion of the construction to the local authority or its recording by the local authority, on the basis of the first assessment held that it shall be deemed to have been constructed in the year 1991-92. Accordingly, in view of the amendment to Section 2(2) vide U.P. No.17 of 1985 w.e.f. 26.4.1985 it would be outside the purview of the Rent Act for the period of 40 years from the said date of completion of construction. 6. Section 2(2) of the Rent Act provides that the provisions of the Rent Act would not apply to a building for a period of 40 years from the date of its completion of the construction. Explanation (1) to Section 2(2) of the Rent Act provides that the construction of the 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 case of building subject to assessment date on which the first assessment thereof comes into effect. In the absence of any of the above two contingencies it provides that the date of actual occupancy of the building for the first time would be the date of completion of the construction of the building. 7. In the absence of any of the above two contingencies it provides that the date of actual occupancy of the building for the first time would be the date of completion of the construction of the building. 7. In the present case the court is not concerned with the third aspect. 8. The court below has specifically recorded a finding that the completion of the construction of the building is neither reported to nor otherwise recorded by the local authority. At the same time, evidence has been produced to show that the house was assessed to house tax and that its first assessment was of the year 1991-92. There is no contra evidence to the aforesaid first assessment. 9. The two documents relied upon Sri Mannas Bhargava, learned counsel for the defendant revisionist (tenant) namely the letter of the Estate Management Officer/Public Information Officer U.P.A.E.V.P. dated 01.11.2013 and the allotment letter dated 17.05.1985 issued by the U.P.A.E.V.P. are not the documents which in any way indicate the date of completion of the construction of the building. The allotment order only states that the house in dispute has been allotted on 21.03.1984 whereas the information furnished by the Estate Management Officer/Public Information Officer states that the said house was allotted on 21.03.1984 and that allotment is made by the U.P.A.E.V.P. after the completion of the construction of the house. 10. None of these documents show the exact date of completion of the construction. These documents are not even part of the evidence of the court below which can be considered as admissible for the purposes of deciding this revision. 11. Accordingly, the said two documents cannot be treated as any reliable evidences to prove or establish the date of completion of the construction of the building. 12. Apart from this as per the Explanation-1 to Section 2(2) of the Rent Act in case of building subject to assessment the date on which the first assessment thereof come into effect is to be treated as the date completion of the building. 13. There is no dispute that the building is subject to assessment and its first assessment was w.e.f. year 1991-91. The aforesaid provision creates a legal fiction and in such a situation irrespective of the date of the actual construction of the building, the date of first assessment of it would be deemed to be date of its actual construction. 14. There is no dispute that the building is subject to assessment and its first assessment was w.e.f. year 1991-91. The aforesaid provision creates a legal fiction and in such a situation irrespective of the date of the actual construction of the building, the date of first assessment of it would be deemed to be date of its actual construction. 14. In the above circumstances as the date of completion of the building is of the year 1991-92 and the provisions of the Rent Act are not applicable to it for a period of 40 years. 15. Accordingly, I am of the opinion that the court below has not committed any error in holding that the building is outside the purview of the Rent Act. 16. No other point has been argued before me. 17. The revision has no merit and is dismissed.