Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 92 (UTT)

BALA DUTT v. TRILOK SINGH

2014-03-20

SUDHANSHU DHULIA

body2014
JUDGMENT Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. (Oral) Mr. Pradeep Hairia, Advocate, present for the revisionist. 2. Mr. Siddhartha Shah, Advocate with Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Sah, Advocate, present for the respondent. 3. This is tenant’s revision under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act against the judgment and decree dated 22.07.2008, passed by the Court of Judge Small Causes/District Judge, Nainital in S.C.C. Suit No.10 of 2002. 4. The landlord filed a suit as far back as in the 2002 for ejectment which was dismissed, against which a revision petition was filed, on which the matter was remanded back to the Small Causes Court for determining afresh as to whether the disputed premises in question is covered under the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (from herein after referred to as “the Act No. 13 of 1972”) or not? 5. On remand, the matter was heard afresh and the Court below came to the conclusion that the building in question is outside the purview of the Act No. 13 of 1972, as the construction is a new construction. This reasoning was given by the Court below after considering the definition of Section 2 of the Act No.13 of 1972. Section 2 of the Act No.13 of 1972 stipulates certain buildings from operation of the Act. One of the of the exemptions is the second proviso along with Explanation-I (a), (b) and (c), which reads as under:- 2. Exemptions from operation of Act.- (1) Nothing in this Act shall apply to the following, namely:- (a) ……………………………. (b) …………………………. (bb) …………………………….. (bbb)…………………………… (c) ………………………………… (d) ………………………………… (e) …………………………………. (f) …………………………………. (g) …………………………………. (h) …………………………………. One of the of the exemptions is the second proviso along with Explanation-I (a), (b) and (c), which reads as under:- 2. Exemptions from operation of Act.- (1) Nothing in this Act shall apply to the following, namely:- (a) ……………………………. (b) …………………………. (bb) …………………………….. (bbb)…………………………… (c) ………………………………… (d) ………………………………… (e) …………………………………. (f) …………………………………. (g) …………………………………. (h) …………………………………. (2) Except as provided in sub-section (5) of Section 12, sub-section (1-A) of Section 21, sub-section (2) of Section 24, Section 24-A, 24-B, 24-C or sub-section (3) of Section 29, nothing in this Act shall apply to a building during a period of ten years from the date on which its construction is completed: Provided that where any building is constructed substantially out of funds obtained by way of loan or advance from the State Government or the Life Insurance Corporation of India or a bank or a co-operative society or the Uttar Pradesh Avas Evam Vikas Parishad, and the period of repayment of such loan or advance exceeds the aforesaid period of ten years then the reference to the period of fifteen years or the period ending with the date of actual repayment of such loan or advance (including interest), whichever is shorter: Provided further that where construction of a building is completed on or after April 26, 1985 then the reference in this sub-section to the period of ten years shall be deemed to be a reference to a period of [forty years] from the date on which its construction is completed. Explanation I.- For the purposes of this section,- (a) 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 building subject to assessment, the date on which the first assessment thereof comes into effect, and where the said dates are different, the earliest of the said dates, and in the absence of any such report, record or assessment, 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 construction 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; (b) “construction” includes any new construction in place of an existing building which has been wholly or substantially demolished; (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 constructed on the date of completion of the said addition. Explanation II.-…………………………………………… Explanation III.-………………………………………….. (3) ……………………………………………………………” 6. The finding arrived at by the learned Court below is that although the building is an old one but since the building was dilapidated, a new construction was made on the building which has substantially changed the nature of the building and therefore, it will be a new construction as per the provision of Section 2 of the Act No. 13 of 1972. 7. After considering the said provisions of the Act No. 13 of 1972, the learned court below has given a categorical finding that the building in question is out of the operation of the Act No. 13 of 1972. 8. After appreciating the evidence led by both the parties, the learned Small Causes Court came to the conclusion that the landlord/plaintiffs had given a notice to the revisionist/defendant on 9th May, 2002 which was received by the revisionist/defendant on 13th June, 2002. Therefore, from the date of service of notice, the tenancy of the revisionist/defendant comes to an end. 9. After appreciating the evidence led by both the parties, the learned Small Causes Court came to the conclusion that the landlord/plaintiffs had given a notice to the revisionist/defendant on 9th May, 2002 which was received by the revisionist/defendant on 13th June, 2002. Therefore, from the date of service of notice, the tenancy of the revisionist/defendant comes to an end. 9. There is absolutely no infirmity in the judgment of the trial court. Hence, no interference is called for. The revision petition is hereby dismissed. 8. The revisionist/defendant shall vacate the premises in question within a period of six months from today i.e. on or before September 20, 2014.