JUDGMENT N.K. Mehrotra, J.
1. This is a revision under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act against the judgment and order dated 7.8.1992 passed by the Vth Additional District Judge/Judge Small Causes Courts, Barabankl in S.C.C. Suit No. 4 of 1986, Smt. Sarla Mishra v. Naresh Chandra Jain.
2. The plaintiff-opposite party filed a suit for eviction from the disputed shop and recovery of arrears of rent and damages against the defendant revisionist with the allegations that the disputed shop was constructed in the year 1979 and as such, the provisions of U. P. Urban Buildings Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') were not applicable and the defendant had not paid rent for the month of February, 1986 and March, 1986. The rate of rent was said to be Rs. 700 per month. A notice-dated 31.12.1985 was sent to the defendant terminating his tenancy. The case of the defendant-revisionist was that there is no relationship of the landlord and the tenant between the plaintiff and the defendant. It is contended that in fact Lal Ji Mishra, the father-in-law of the plaintiff was the landlord who admitted the defendant-applicant as tenant and the rent note was duly executed on 2.1.1979. It is also contended by the defendant that an advance of Rs. 10,000 was taken from the defendant for which it was agreed that Rs. 300 would be adjusted every month in re-payment of the advance and the remaining Rs. 400 would be adjusted in payment of the rent by the tenant to the landlord till the amount of Rs. 10,000 was not adjusted. According to the defendant, the rent was being paid regularly to Lal Ji Mishra who issued the rent receipts. It is contended by the defendant that the shop in dispute was not constructed in the year 1979 rather it was constructed in the year 1964-65. According to the defendant, before he was admitted as tenant, the shop remained vacant for an year and before that Pyare Lal and Basant Lal were the tenants of the said shop for several years. No rent was even paid to Smt. Sarla Mishra.
3. The learned trial court after recording the evidence of the parties to the suit decreed the suit of the plaintiff for eviction from the disputed shop and for recovery of rent and damages. The learned trial court recorded findings on three Issues. It was held by the learned trial court that the notice under Section 106 of the T. P. Act was duly served and it was a legal and valid notice, that, the provisions of the Act are not applicable over the disputed shop and Smt. Sarla Mishra is the landlord on the basis of the judgment of the Court of the Civil Judge, Lucknow in a suit which was filed by Smt. Sarla Mishra against her father-in-law Lal Ji Mishra in which Smt. Sarla Mishra has been declared to be owner of the property in suit and that property includes the disputed shop.
4. Aggrieved by the aforesaid findings, the defendant-revisionist has preferred this revision.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the evidence on record.
6. So far as the validity of the notice and service of the notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act is concerned, neither party has placed any argument before me and this finding is not assailed at all. The two issues on which the judgment of the trial court is based are issue Nos. 2 and 3. Out of these two issues, the first issue relates to the question as to whether the provisions of the Act are applicable over the disputed shop or not? Sub-section (2) of Section 2 of the Act provides as follows :
"(2) Except as provided in Sub-section (5) of Section 12, Sub-section (1A) of Section 21, Sub-section (2) of Section 24, Sections 24A, 24B, 24C 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 Partshad, and the period of repayment of such loan or advance exceeds the aforesaid period of ten years, then the reference in this sub-section to the period of ten years shall be deemed to be a 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.
Explanation 1.--For the purpose 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 a building subject to assessment, the date on which the first assessment thereof conies into effect and where the said dates are different, the earliest of the said dates and in the absence of any such report, record of 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 buildings 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 constructed on the date of completion of the said addition."
7. The aforesaid provisions go to show that nothing in this Act shall apply during the period of ten years from the date of its construction is completed. According to the plaintiff, the shop in suit was constructed in the year 1979 ; the suit was filed in the year 1986. The defendant contended about the different dates of assessment of the disputed shop but no such evidence was filed. The defendant alleged about the occupation of the disputed shop by two other tenants before his occupation but neither those tenants have been examined nor any other cogent evidence has been produced by the defendant to prove that the shop in suit was constructed in the year 1964-65 as written in the written statement. The plaintiff examined Lal Ji Mishra and filed the map for the proposed construction passed by the Nagar Palika and the receipts of the House Tax and payment of the purchase of the building materials in support of her contention. So there is direct evidence of the plaintiff to prove the construction of the shop in the suit in the year 1979. So far as the Explanation under Section 2 of the Act is concerned. It lays down a deeming provision when the construction of the building shall be deemed to have been completed. In the absence of the direct evidence, there can be four types of evidence to prove the date of completion of the construction and those types of evidence are ; (1) report of completion ; (2) recording of date of completion by the local authority ; (3) the date of assessment and in the absence of all the three above report, the record or assessment ; (4) the date on which it is actually occupied for the first time. In the instant case under judgment, there is no evidence of the first three categories. It is a case in which there is neither any report of the completion of the construction to the local authority nor any date has been recorded by the local authority itself nor there is any record of the assessment of the disputed shop by the local authority. So in the absence of three dates, the date of occupation for the first time will be a relevant date in this case. According to the plaintiff, the construction was completed after getting the proposed map of construction approved and it was first occupied by the defendant on 2.1.1979. The averments of the defendant about the occupation by the other two tenants is not proved by the cogent evidence. Therefore, there is nothing in this revision to interfere in the Impugned finding recorded by the trial court on the date of completion of the construction of the disputed shop.
8. The learned counsel for the revisionist has referred Om Prakash Gupta v. Digvijendra Pal Gupta, 1979 ARC 469, in support of his contention but this judgment is not relevant in this case because in this case the Division Bench of this Court has interpreted the Explanation 1 (a) of Section 2 (2) of the Act while in this case there is evidence about the first occupation of the building and in the instant case, there is no evidence about first assessment of the shop in question.
9. The second material issue in this revision is as to whether there exists any relationship of the landlord and the tenant between the parties. No doubt the shop was let out by Lalji Mishra as is evident from the record but Smt. Sarla Mishra became the owner of the shop by partition of the land after the judgment in the suit between Smt. Sarla Mishra and her father-in-law Lalji Mishra, so if, on the basis of a judgment of a competent court Smt. Sarla Mishra has become the owner of the disputed shop, she becomes the landlord also on the basis of the order of the Court of the Civil Judge. So this finding about the relationship of the landlord and the tenant between the parties is also in accordance with law.
10. Under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, the court of revision can Interfere in the findings of the Judge, Small Cause If it appears to the revisional court that the findings are not in accordance with law. The concept of "according to law" has been explained as error of law touching the jurisdiction or error of substantial nature as a result of which the party against whom the decision has been given is going to suffer substantial loss. In the instant case, I do not find that any of the finding recorded by the trial court is not in accordance with law. Therefore, there is no ground to interfere in the judgment of the trial court in this revision and the revision is liable to be dismissed.
11. In result, the revision is dismissed.