2004 (9) TMI 643 - SC - Indian Laws

Whether the tenant permitted to occupy the premises till the end of 2005 subject to filing the usual undertaking before the Trial Court with a clear stipulation that the rent fixed shall be paid within the stipulated time and arrears if any shall be paid within two months?

Summary

Issues:
1. Applicability of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent, and Eviction) Act, 1972 to a tenancy at will.
2. Interpretation of Section 2(2) of the Act regarding the completion date of a building.
3. Burden of proof on the landlord to establish exemption from the Act's provisions.
4. Consideration of the Explanation to Section 2(2) in determining the completion date of construction.
5. Whether the High Court's decision confirming the Revisional Court's order was justified.
6. Granting reasonable time for the tenant to vacate the premises.

Analysis:
1. The primary issue in the case was the applicability of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings Act to a tenancy at will. The tenant argued that the Act was not applicable, leading to liability for eviction. The trial court accepted the tenant's plea based on the completion date of construction, but the Revisional Court and High Court disagreed, upholding the eviction decree.

2. The interpretation of Section 2(2) of the Act was crucial in determining the completion date of the building. The tenant contended that the completion date was before the Act's applicability period, while the landlord failed to provide specific details as required. The Explanation to Section 2(2) outlined different dates for determining completion, emphasizing the importance of the first assessment coming into effect.

3. The burden of proof rested on the landlord to establish exemption from the Act's provisions. The tenant argued that the landlord's failure to report the completion date should not benefit them, highlighting the landlord's obligation to provide necessary details as per the Act.

4. The consideration of the Explanation to Section 2(2) played a significant role in determining the completion date of construction. The tenant's argument regarding the assessment date and the landlord's obligation to prove exemption were central to the dispute.

5. The High Court's decision confirming the Revisional Court's order was deemed justified based on the interpretation of the completion date and the application of the Act's provisions. The tenant's appeal was dismissed, with no costs imposed.

6. A residual plea for granting the tenant a reasonable time to vacate the premises was considered due to the tenant's long occupation. The tenant was permitted to occupy the premises until the end of 2005, subject to specific conditions regarding rent payment and arrears settlement.

In conclusion, the judgment addressed the complex issues surrounding the Act's applicability, burden of proof, interpretation of statutory provisions, and granting of reasonable time for the tenant to vacate the premises, ultimately upholding the eviction decree while providing temporary relief to the tenant.