LexLAL CHAND AND ANR. versus DISTRICT JUDGE AGRA AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B LAL CHAND AND ANR. v. DISTRICT JUDGE AGRA AND ORS. SEPTEMBER 16, 1999 [M. JAGANNADHA RAO AND M.B. SHAH, JJ.] U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972. C S.2(2) Explanation (/)-Building exempted from operation of Act for 10 years from its "Construction"-Tenancy of shop under United Provinces (Temporary) Control of Rent 'and Eviction Act-Building reconstructed-- Shop vacated during reconstruction-Tenant put in possession after reconstruction of shop in 1970-Landlord filing civil suit in 1976 seeking D eviction of tenant after. giving notice u/s. 106 of Transfer of Property Act and contending that because of reconstruction, building was exempt from provisions of 1972 Act-Tenant's contention that he has been a sta~utory tenant, exemption period of 10 years to a new construction would not be applicable, rejected by courts below and decree of eviction passed-Held, courts below have recorded a finding of fact that the shop was a new E construction-Period of JO years even if reckoned from 1970, goes upto 1980 and suit having been filed in 1976 during the ten years period is maintainable in as much as during the said period the building was exempt from the provisions of the Act-In Instant case, building having been demolished by way of an agreement between tenant and landlord, S. 19 of 1947 Act would not apply and statutory right of tenant came to an end-Judgments of High F Court and Trial Court do not warrant any interference-Order of eviction not to be enforced for one year on tenant's filing usual undertaking-United Provinces (Temporary) Control of Rent and EvictiOn Act, 1947-S. 7 and 19. G H Words and Phrases. "Construction "-Meaning of Om Prakash Gupta v. Dig. Vijendrapal Gupta, (1982)2 SCC 61; and Ramesh Chandra v. ///Additional District Judge and Ors., (1992)1 SCC 751, relied on. 664 I ..._ LAL CHAND v. DISTT. JUDGE, AGRA 665 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1040of1995. A From the Judgment and Order dated 5.9.94 of th~ Allahabad High Court in C. Misc. W.P. No. 5650 of 1982. M.C. Dhingra for the Appellant. Arvind Kumar and Ms. Laxmi Arvind for the Respondent No. 3. The following Order of the Court was delivered : B This appeal is preferred by the legal representative of Gian Chand, the original tenant who was sought to be evicted by the respondent-landlord in C a regular Civil suit for eviction filed in 1976. According to the landlord, the building was newly constructed in 1970, Gian Chand, the erstwhile tenant re- took possession in 1970, but that because of reconstruction, the building was exempt from the provisions of the U.P. Urban Building (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the 1972 Act) for a D period of IO years as mentioned in Section 2(2) of the Act. The new Act came into force on 15.7.72. The landlord gave notice for eviction in 1976 under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act terminating the tenancy and thereafter, he filed the present suit in 1976. The tenant, Gian Chand contended that he was tenant from 1959 and E that the building was reconstructed and the re-construction was completed in 1970. He was occupying only a room earlier and though there was some new construction, the room occupied by him did not suffer any reconstruction and in any event, he was entitled to the protection which was available to him under the old Act of 1947. F Gian Chand was allotted the shop on rent by the prescribed authority under Section 7 of the United Provinces (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 194 7, which was the authority to allot vacant premises on rent. Subsequently, Gian Chand accommodated the respondent landlord by voluntarily vacating the room in his occupation, upon an understanding that G he would be put back into possession after reconstruction. Therefore, after reconstruction, he was again inducted into possession as tenant. Gian Chand contended that he would continue to be a statutory tenant and, therefore, the exemption period of l 0 years granted under the 1972 Act to a new construction would not be applicable in this case. H 666 SUPREME COURT _REPORTS (1999) SUPP. 2 S.C.R. A The Trial Judge, namely, the Judge in the Court of Small Causes, Agra in his judgment dated 19 .10.81 framed four issues for consideration as follows. (l) Whether disputed premises was newly constructed in the year 1970 as stated in the plaint?
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.