9911796707
TMI Blog1984 (1) TMI 348X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not covered by the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the New Rent Act for short), and that the defendant defaulted in the payment of rent despite notice dated 24th March, 1977. The Respondent therefore terminated the tenancy of the appellant. 3. The claim was resisted by the appellant on the ground that the building in question was constructed in 1968 and that it was covered by the new Rent Act. His further stand was that rent had been cleared upto 6th April, 1977 and there was no default in the payment of rent. He also challenged the service and the validity of the notice terminating his tenancy. The appellant also claimed the adjustment of Rs. 1000 spent by him towards the repairs of the premises. By a later amendment it was further pleaded that the plaint having not been amended so as to bring the suit under the provisions of the new Rent Act the suit was barred by Section 20 of the Act. 4. The Third Additional District Judge negatived the defence and decreed the suit for eviction as also for recovery of arrears of rent and damages for use and occupation. The learned Judge held that the building was exemp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tection of the new Rent Act. 6. The High Court confirmed the findings of the trial Court on all other points except the finding about the arrears of rent. In the opinion of the High Court admittedly a sum of Rs. 1000- had been paid by the appellant to the landlord through a crossed cheque dated 16th August, 1976 which was received by the landlord on 15th September, 1976. But when the plaintiff was in the witness box payment by cheque was not specifically put to him and it has not been established as to for which period the payment by cheque was made. The counter-foil of the cheque book also did not specify the period for which this payment by cheque was made. The High Court, however, did not endorse the finding of the Additional District Judge that the payment through the cheque may have been made by the appellant towards rent for some period prior to April 7, 1976 and held it to be manifestly erroneous and without any basis. 7. In the result High Court allowed the appeal in part and set aside the decree of the trial court relating to the recovery of Rs. 3158-30 as arrears of rent for the period between April 7, 1976 and April 25, 1977 and remanded the case to the trial court ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eference in this sub-section to the period often 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 each loan or advance (including interest), whichever is shorter. Explanation I.- For the purposes of this sub-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 comes into effect and where the said dates are different, the earliest of the said dates, and in the absence of any such report, record or 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 as construction in respect of different parts of a building which are either designed as separate units or are occupied separately by the landlord and one or more tenants: or by dif ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1967 and not on the date of the first assessment and if that be so, the appellant would be entitled to the benefit of Section 39 of the Act on the date when the revision came to be decided by the High Court on 23rd March, 1978. This Court, however, held that it is the date of the first assessment which will be deemed to be the date of completion of the construction in the circumstances of the case and in that view of the matter the building had not become more than ten years old on the date when the revision came to be decided by the High Court and, therefore, there was no question of giving the benefit of Section 39 of the Act to the appellant It was not at all necessary in that case to deal with the question whether the appellant would be entitled to the benefit of Section 39 as the building had not become ten years old on the date when the revision petition was heard. In the instant case, however, the building had become more than ten years old during the pendency of the litigation and, therefore, the question assumes importance in the present case. 15. It may be argued that the Court had to decide the case on the basis of cause of action that accrued prior to the date of fi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ession cause of action in the present context does not mean every fact which it is material to be proved to entitle the plaintiff to succeed as was said, in Cooks v. Gill [1873] L R B C.P. 107 in a different context, for if it were so, no material fact could ever be amended or added and, of course, no one would want to change or add an immaterial allegation by amendment. That expression for the present purpose only means, a new claim made on a new basis constituted by new facts. Such a view was taken in Rabinson v. Unicos Property Corporation Ltd. [1962] 2 All. E.R. 24 and it seems to us to be the only possible view to take. Any other view would make the rule futile. 17. The appellant in the present case only seeks the protection of the new Rent Act which became applicable to the premises in question during the pendency of the litigation. We see no reason why the benefit of the new Rent Act be not given to the appellant. Section 20 of the new Rent Act provides a bar to a suit for eviction of a tenant except on the specified grounds as provided in the section. Sub-section (4) of Section 20 stipulates that in any suit for eviction on the grounds mentioned in Clause (a) to Sub ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
