Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 1732 (ALL)

Devendra Nath Gupta v. Govind Prasad Agrawal

2016-05-05

SUNITA AGARWAL

body2016
JUDGMENT Mrs. Sunita Agarwal, J. – Only ground of challenge to the finding recorded by two Courts below raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the provisions of Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act No.13 of 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') are not applicable with regard to the building in question as the petitioner was inducted in the year 1948. 2. It is submitted that the Act came into force w.e.f. 15.7.1972 and for a building which was governed by the old Rent Control Act, U.P. Act No.13 of 1972 would not apply. 3. Dealing with this submission of learned counsel for the petitioner, it may be noted that the Act 1972 was promulgated on 15.7.1972 and extended to the whole of Uttar Pradesh. Section 1 narrates that it applies to: - (a). every city as defined in the Uttar Pradesh Nagar Mahapalika Adhiniyam, 1959 (U.P. Act No. II of 1959); (b). every municipality as defined in the United Provinces Municipalities Act, 1916 (U.P. Act No. II of 1916); (c). every notified area constituted under United Provinces Municipalities Act, 1916 (U.P. Act No. II of 1916); (d). every town areas constituted under the United Provinces Town Areas Act, 1914 (U.P. Act No. II of 1914). 4. Section 2 further provides exemptions from operation of the Act to certain classes of building as described in Clauses (a) to (h). 5. Sub-Section (2) of Section 2 provides that the provisions of Section 21 shall not apply to a building for a period of ten years from the date of its construction. Second proviso to Sub-Section (2) of Section 2 further provides that in cases of building where construction is completed on or after 26.4.1985, the reference in the Sub-Section to the period of 10 years shall be deemed to be a reference to a period of 40 years from the date on which its construction is completed. 6. Apart from the buildings covered by the exemption granted under Section 2 of the Act, all other buildings are covered under the provisions of the Act. There is no exemption for an old building. 7. The argument of learned counsel for the petitioner is, therefore, misconceived. 8. 6. Apart from the buildings covered by the exemption granted under Section 2 of the Act, all other buildings are covered under the provisions of the Act. There is no exemption for an old building. 7. The argument of learned counsel for the petitioner is, therefore, misconceived. 8. However, looking to the merits of the case, it is apparent that the release application was filed in the year 2011 for the need narrated by the landlord for himself and his two sons. It was specifically stated by the landlord that he was using a 'Cart' for his business and there is no other place to establish his sons. 9. Whereas the tenant is using the disputed premises as a godown for his business of weights which he is carrying on from the adjacent shop in House No.76/157 Halsi Road, Coolie Bazaar, Kanpur Nagar. The fact that business is being run by the tenant from an adjacent shop in House No.76/157 is not denied. 10. The tenant has not been able to establish that the landlord has any other place to do his business or to settle his sons. There are 11 members in the family of the landlord and he genuinely requires a place for business. 11. On comparative hardship also, it is seen that the tenant has another place for his business that too adjacent to the property in question. 12. For the above noted reasons, there is no justification to interfere. 13. Dismissed.