(Order on Review Application C.M. Application No.13164 of 2017)
1. This review application is filed by the revisionist-tenant against the judgment and order dated 21.11.2017 whereby the JSCC revision was dismissed by this Court.
2. I have heard counsel for the review-applicant and counsel for the opposite party.
3. The said JSCC suit of the opposite party for eviction and arrears of rent was decreed by the Court below. Counsel for the review applicant has feebly argued the review application. His submissions are that the property is covered by the Rent Control Act and entire rent was deposited by him, therefore, no case for eviction is made out. This Court had considered both the aspects in paragraph-10 of the judgment which reads as follows:-
"10. The learned counsel has referred to the provision of Rent Control Act, according to which a building is exempted from the purview of Rent Control Act for a period of 40 years from the date of its construction. The period of 40 years has been made applicable with effect from 26.4.1985. Since the land was purchased in year 1987 therefore the benefit of exemption of 40 years would be available to the opposite parties. It has also been submitted that as per explanation-I, the construction of building is deemed to have been completed on the date on which the completion thereof is reported or recorded by local authority and in case of building subject to assessment, the date on which the first assessment thereof comes into effect. According to the learned counsel for the opposite parties, this is a statutory provision. The copy of assessment, which is on record clearly establishes that the building was first assessed on 1.12.1996. Thus for a period of 40 years from 1.12.1996, the shop in question was exempted from the purview of Rent Control Act. It has further been submitted that when the Rent Control was not applicable to the building, the tenancy of a tenant could always be terminated by serving a notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of the Property Act and for termination of tenancy, no ground was required. There is evidence on record to show that the notice was valid and was also received by the revisionist. The rent which has been deposited by the revisionist under Section 30 of the Rent Control Act, has rightly been held to be invalid deposit because when the Rent Control Act was not applicable, no rent could have been deposited under the provision of the said Act. Whether the revisionist was defaulter or not, was not to be considered, for the reason that the tenancy was terminated under Section 106 of the Transfer of the Property Act, for which no ground was required. It has not been shown by the revisionist that the notice served by the opposite parties was an illegal notice. In these circumstances the judgment and decree passed by the court below is perfectly justified and legal and does not call for any interference by this Court."
4. Both the grounds were well considered and thereafter rejected by this Court. Counsel for the review applicant could not show any material illegality on the face of record in the said findings. I find the findings are given as per law. Therefore, no case for review is made out.
5. The review application is dismissed.
Order Date :- 30.9.2019 Arti/-