Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 1140 (ALL)

Ashok Kumar v. Virendra

2016-03-30

SUNITA AGARWAL

body2016
JUDGMENT Sunita Agarwal, J. – Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. The suit for eviction on the ground of arrears of rent was rejected by the Court below on the ground that the tenancy could not have been terminated by the notice under Section 106 of Transfer of Property Act as it was not a valid notice. 3. The contention of the plaintiff that the building in question is exempted from the operation of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 has been examined. After appreciation of evidence on record it was found that even as per the document of the plaintiff Paper No. 21-Ga it is established that the building in question was completed in the year 1983-84 the map of which was sanctioned in the year 1978. 4. It is admitted to the plaintiff-landlord that he did not give any information to Nagar Palika regarding completion of building. As the plaintiff could not establish that the shop in question was constructed after 26.4.1985, it was held that the building is covered by the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972. Further the plaintiff could not establish that on the date of filing of suit the defendant was in arrears for more than four months. 5. With the above findings, the suit was dismissed. 6. Challenging the order of rejection of suit, submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the document 21-Ga which was extract of Municipal Assessment record was not properly examined. The record clearly indicates that the father of the defendant was inducted as tenant in the shop in question and his name was recorded therein. The shop was constructed after a family partition arrived between the co-owners. The defendant was in default on the date of filing of the suit and the Court below has erred in rejecting the contention of the plaintiff. 7. Dealing with the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner suffice is to say that the burden to prove that the shop in question was exempted from the operation of the Act was upon the plaintiff which he had failed to discharge. 8. As the provision of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 are applicable and hence the tenancy could not have been terminated by a notice under Section 106 of Transfer of Property Act. 8. As the provision of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 are applicable and hence the tenancy could not have been terminated by a notice under Section 106 of Transfer of Property Act. The finding of fact recorded by the Court below that the plaintiff has failed to establish that the defendant was in arrears of rent for more than four months cannot be interfered. 9. There is no merits in the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner. 10. Dismissed. Petition dismissed.