9911796707
TMI Blog1987 (9) TMI 412X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be invalid. The trial court therefore dismissed the suit. The High Court set aside this conclusion of the trial court. The main ground which was before the High Court was as to whether the provisions of U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 ( Act for short) will be applicable to these proceedings in view of the fact that although the premises were let out in June 1976 but as the assessment was made on October 1, 1976 the provisions of the Act referred to above will not apply for 10 years from October 1, 1976 and therefore the suit could be decreed as the protection available under this Act will not be available to the tenant. High Court after discussing various decisions came to the conclusion that in view of the language of Section 2 sub-clause 2 Explanation 1, it could not be doubted that period of 10 years will commence from the date of assessment i.e. October 1, 1976 that it is in that view of the matter that the learned Judge of the High Court decreed the suit and hence the present appeal. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that apart from the controversy about the date which should be the starting point for computing the per ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t case this Court was considering the language of a notification issued under the East Punjab Act exempting buildings from the operation of the Act for five years and the view taken by this Court in that decision is based on the language of the notification issued whereas in view of the language of Sections 39 and 40 of the Act which is applicable to the present case that view is not possible and it is because of this that in Vineet Kumar s case (supra) this Court took the view that if during the pendency of the proceedings 10 years have elapsed the tenant will be entitled to the benefit of the provisions of the Act. It was contended that in this decision the Court was concerned with the provisions of Section 2 of the Act itself. Before this Court also the only question that was raised on behalf of the parties was as to whether the provisions of the Act will be applicable or not and as to whether the protection granted to the tenants under this Act will be available to the present appellant Learned counsel for the appellant contended that as during the pendency of this matter in this Court 10 years have elapsed even if the date of completion is taken to be 1. 10.76 which is the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dlord 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 deemed to be constructed on the date of completion of the said addition. A perusal of this provision will clearly indicate that the new buildings constructed have been exempted from the operation of this Act for a period of 10 years. This period of 10 years have to be computed in the manner from the date as indicated in Explanation 1 and it was contended by learned counsel for the respondents that it will be the date on which the first assessment was made and so far as this question is concerned, it is also concluded by a decision of this Court in Om Prakash Gupta s case (supra) where it has been clearly held while interpreting Sec. 2 Explanation I of this Act that if there is an assessment made then the date of completion of the building, the date from which 10 years are to be computed will be t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d to make necessary amendment in their pleadings and to adduce additional evidence where necessary: Provided that a tenant the rent payable by whom does not exceed twenty-five rupees per month need not deposit any interest as aforesaid: It is pertinent to note that this Section applies to those suits which were pending on the date of the commencement of this Act. Admittedly this Act came into force on 15th July, 1972 and therefore if the suit was pending on that date it is only then that the provisions of Section 39 will come to the assistance of the tenantappellant. Admittedly this suit was not pending on the date on which this Act came into force. An attempt was made to contend that so far as the present property is concerned the Act will be deemed to have come into force on the expiry of 10 years i.e. 1.10.86 but this contention could not be accepted as it is very clear from the language of this Act that it applied I only to a suit pending on the date of the commencement of this Act and this is the view taken in the Om Prakash Gupta s case wherein it was observed: Further, in order to attract section 39 the suit must be pending on the date of commencement of the Act whic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ounds as provided in the section. Subsection (4) of S. 20 stipulated that in any suit for eviction on the grounds mentioned in Cl. (a) to sub-s. (2) viz. the arrears of rent, if at the first hearing of the suit the tenant in default pays all arrears of rent to the landlord or deposits in court the entire amount of rent and damages for the use and occupation of the building due from him, such damages for use and occupation being calculated at the same rate as rent together with interest thereon at the rate of nine per cent per annum and the landlord s cost of the suit in respect thereof after deducting therefrom any amount already deposited by the tenant under subs. (1) of S. 30, the court may, in lieu of passing a decree for eviction on that ground, pass an order relieving the tenant against his liability for eviction on that ground. Section 39 and 40 of the new Rent Act also indicate that the benefit of new Act will be given to the tenant if the conditions contemplated in those sections are satisfied. Section 39 also indicates that the parties are entitled to make necessary amendment in their pleadings and to adduce additional evidence where necessary. But unfortunately atten ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
