BHOLA NATH VARSHNEY (SINCE DEAD) THROUGH HIS LRS. versus MULK RAJ MADAN

Citation: [1994] 1 S.C.R. 327 · Decided: 25-01-1994 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. MOHAN, M.K. MUKHERJEE

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

- ---
BHOLA NATH V ARSHNEY (SINCE DEAD) THROUGH HIS LRS. 
A 
v. 
MULK RAJ MADAN 
JANUARY 25, 1994 
[S. MOHAN AND M.K. MUKHERJEE, JJ.] 
B 
The Uttar Pradesh .Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Evictions 
Act, 1972-Ss. 2(2), 20(2), 39-Residential premises-Leased out on 
rent-Suit for eviction-Premises not being JO years old on date of suit-Ex-
C 
emption from operation of Act-JO years elapsed pending litigation-Ap-
plicability of Act-Held, Act does not become applicable merely because JO 
years elapsed during pending of suit-For purposes of s. 39, suit must be 
pending on date of commencement of Act-When Act itself was not ap-
plicable, s. 39 would not apply. 
D 
The landlord-appellant, after serving a notice under s. 106 of the 
Transfer of Property Act, 1982 on the respondent, filed a suit for his 
eviction in the Court of Small Causes in 1981. His case was that the 
tenanted building was constructed in 1974 and as 10 years had not elapsed 
since then, the Uttar Pradesh Buildings (Regulation of Letting Rent and 
Eviction) Act, 1972 did not apply to it, and if at all, the tenant was not E 
entitled to its benefit since he had not comp!ied with s. 39 of the Act. The 
trial Court dismissed the suit holding that the Act applied to the building; 
none of the grounds mentioned in s. 20(2) of the Act was made out; and 
the tenant not being in arrears of rent was not required to comply with s. 
39. The revisional court accepted landlord's case and decreed the suit. 
F 
The respondent tenant filed a petition which was allowed by the High 
Court, holding that as 10 years elapsed during the pendency of the suit, 
the Act would apply. Hence the landlord's appeal, by special leave. 
Allowing the appeal setting aside the judgment of High Court and G 
restoring that of the revisional court, this Court 
HELD: 1.1. The Uttar Pradesh· Buildings (Regulation of Letting, 
Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 has no application to the facts of the instant 
case. [334-F] 
H 
327 
A 
B 
328 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1994] 1 S.C.R. 
1.2. The law applicable on the date of the institution of the suit alone 
governs the suit and the mere fact that the statutory period of ten years 
expires during the pendency of the suit/appeal/revision, the Uttar Pradesh 
Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and. Eviction) Act, 1972 does· not 
become applicable. The suit has to be tried and· decided without teference 
to the Act. [334-D-E] 
Ramesh Chandra v. III Additional District Judge, [1992] 1 S.C.C. 751, 
Nand Ki.shore Marwah v. Somundri Devi, [1987] 4 S.C.C. 382 and Om 
Prakash Gupta v. Dig Vijendrapal Gupta, [1982] 2 S.C.C. 61, relied on. 
C 
Vineet Kumar v. Mangal Sain Wadhera, [1984] 3 S.C.C. 352, Pasupleti 
Venkateswarlu v. Motor and General Tranders, [1975] 1 S.C.C. 770 andA.K 
Gupta & Sons v.Damodar Valley Corporation, A.I.R.1967 S.C. 96, referred 
to. 
2.1. In order to attract s. 39 of the Uttar Pradesh Buildings (Regula-
D lion of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, the suit must be pending on 
the date of commencement of the Act, i.e.15.7.1972. The legislature desired 
to limit the scope of the application of Ss. 39 and 40, to suits, appeals and 
revisions pending on the date of commencement of the Act, relating to 
buildings to which the old Act did not apply and to whtch the new Act was 
E 
to apply forthwith and not at a later date. [334-H; 335-C] 
2.2. In the instant case the suit was filed in 1981, long after the 
commencement of the Act. Further, when the Act itself was not applicable, 
s. 39 would not apply. [335-D] 
F 
Om Prakash Gupta v. Dig Vijendrapal Gupta, [1982] 2 S.C.C. 61 and 
G 
Suresh Chand v. Gulam Chisti, A.I.R. 1990 S.C. 897, relied on. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1766 of 
1986. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 20.11.1985 of the Allahabad 
High Court in W.P. No. 14149 of 1985. 
Ms. S. Goswami for the Appellants. 
H 
P. Swamp, Praveen Swamp and P. Choudhary for the Respondent. 
BHOLANATII v. MULKRAJ [M.K. MUKHERJEE, J.] 
329 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
M.K. MUKHERJEE, J.1. This appeal by special leave has been filed 
by the landlord against the judgment and order of the Allahabad High 
Court alloWing the Civil Writ Petition of the respondent-tenant. 
A 
2. After serving a notice in accordance with Section 106 of Transfer B 
of Property Act, the landlord instituted a suit for eviction in the Court of 
Small Causes, Moradabad on July 23, 1981. He contended that the 
tenanted building w

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.