This is tenants' writ petition. Landlord respondent No.2, Hori Lal filed suit against tenants petitioners for eviction and recovery of arrears of rent in the form of S.C.C. Suit No.47 of 1993. The main question involved in the suit was regarding applicability of U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972. Case of the landlord was that shop in dispute was constructed in July, 1983, hence the Act was not applicable as the suit had been filed within ten years from the date of construction, i.e. on 21.04.1993.
The trial court/ J.S.C.C. Bijnor held that the Act was applicable. No ground for eviction as provided under Section 20(2) of the Act was alleged to exist by the landlord. Accordingly, suit was dismissed on 1 14.05.1998.
Against the said judgment and decree, landlord filed S.C.C. Revision No.89 of 1998. III A.D.J. Bijnor allowed the revision through judgment and order dated 26.09.1998 and decreed the suit of the landlord holding that the Act was not applicable on the building in dispute and tenancy had been validly terminated through notice. The judgment and order of the Revisional court has been challenged through this writ petition.
It is admitted case of the parties that at the place of the shop in dispute, there was an old shop, which was in the tenancy occupation of the tenants petitioners since 1976. Landlord respondent asserted and tenants petitioners admitted that the said shop was quite big and by agreement between the parties, the said shop was vacated by the tenants, demolished by the landlord and eight shops at the site of the old big shop were constructed by the landlord. The tenants asserted that meanwhile landlord had given them another shop 2 belonging to him. There was litigation in the form of proceedings under Section 145, C.P.C. in between the parties. Ultimately, shop in dispute, which was newly constructed, was given to the tenants and they vacated other shop, which was meanwhile given on rent to them by the landlord. Copy of the written statement filed by the tenants petitioners is Annexure-II to the writ petition. Tenants asserted that under the oral agreement entered into at the time of vacation of old shop, the understanding was that one shop would be constructed at the place of the old shop, however landlord dishonestly constructed eight new shops. Even if this version is accepted, it will not make much difference. As far as the question of date of construction is concerned, in Para-4 of the written statement where assertion regarding oral agreement has been made, it has not been stated that it was also agreed between the parties that on the new shop, the Act would continue to apply. The fact of constructing eight (or four) new shops at the 3 place of the old shop has been stated in Para-6 of the written statement. In the same para, it is also mentioned that on 15.05.1983 kirayanama was executed by the defendant. Thereafter, in Para-7 of the written statement, it is mentioned that parties compromised the matter on 13.07.1983 (in respect of vacation of alternative shop which had been provided by the landlord to the tenants). In Para-7 of the written statement, it is also mentioned that, the agreement dated 13.07.1983 was to the effect that three newly constructed shops would be converted into one shop and given on rent to the tenants for Rs.225/- per month and in pursuance of the said agreement, landlord converted three new shops into one and gave it on rent to the tenants.
The trial court had held that it was not proved that the new construction was so substantial that it could amount to altogether new construction. This finding was utterly wrong and rightly set aside by the Revisional 4 court. Altogether new construction was clearly admitted by the tenants in their written statement. Under the facts and circumstances of the case, it can not be held that the Act would continue to apply even after the new construction. In the written statement, there is no allegation that there was any agreement at the time of vacation of the old shop by the tenants that the newly constructed shop would be given on same terms and conditions to them by the landlord. There is also no such allegation that the old shop was in dilapidated condition. The only allegation in paragraph-4 of the written statement is that the previous shop was old. There is no such presumption that every old building is in dilapidated condition. Accordingly, I do not find any error in the judgment and order passed by the Revisional court.
Certain authorities have been cited regarding date of construction as provided under Section 2(2) of the Act. However, new construction is admitted by the 5 tenants and they claimed to have occupied newly constructed shop for the first time in July, 1983 (Para-7 of the written statement).
Accordingly, there is no merit in the writ petition, hence it is dismissed.
Order Date :- 25.1.2010 NLY 6