9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Applicability of Section 39 of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972. 2. Interpretation of "commencement of this Act" in the context of Section 39. 3. Legislative intent behind the ten-year exemption under Section 2(2) of the Act. Summary: 1. Applicability of Section 39 of the Act: The primary issue was whether a tenant of a premises constructed in 1967 is entitled to the protection of Section 39 of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, in an eviction suit instituted before the commencement of the Act. Section 39 mandates that no decree for eviction shall be passed if the tenant deposits the entire amount of rent and damages along with interest and the landlord's full cost of the suit within one month from the date of commencement of the Act or from the date of knowledge of the pendency of the suit. The tenant in this case deposited the required amount within one month after the expiry of the ten-year period stipulated in Section 2(2) of the Act. The trial court and subsequent courts granted the tenant the benefit of Section 39, but the Supreme Court found this to be erroneous as the deposit was not made within one month from the date of commencement of the Act. 2. Interpretation of "commencement of this Act": The term "commencement of this Act" was interpreted to mean 15th July 1972, the date when the Act came into force. The Supreme Court emphasized that the tenant must deposit the arrears of rent and damages within one month from this date to avail the benefit of Section 39. The Court rejected the interpretation that "commencement of this Act" could mean the date when the ten-year exemption period expired, stating that such an interpretation would lead to inconsistent application and encourage tenants to delay proceedings. 3. Legislative Intent behind the Ten-Year Exemption: The ten-year exemption under Section 2(2) was intended to encourage new building construction by relieving new buildings from the restrictive provisions of the Act for ten years. The Court noted that this exemption was meant to apply immediately upon the Act's commencement and not at a later date. The legislative intent was to provide landlords of new buildings a ten-year period free from the Act's restrictions to promote building activity and ease the housing shortage. Conclusion: The Supreme Court concluded that the courts below erred in granting the tenant the benefit of Section 39 since the deposit was not made within the stipulated one month from the Act's commencement. The judgment and decree of the lower courts were set aside, and the tenant was given one year's time to vacate the premises, provided all arrears and damages were paid within one month. The appeal was allowed, with parties bearing their own costs.
|
