LexNAND KISHORE MARWAH & OTHERS versus SMT. SAMUNDRI DEVI
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A
NANO KlSHORE MARWAH & OTHERS
+
v.
SMT. SAMUNDRI DEVI
SEPTEMBER 17, 1987
B
[SABYASACHI MUKHARJI AND G.L. OZA, JJ.J
Landlord-tenant matter-Provisions of U. P. Urban Buildings 'y
(Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972-Sections 2, 39,
40-Applicabi/ity thereof to the case-Protection granted to the tenants
under the Act-Whether available to the tenants in the case.
c
The appellants are the tenants of the disputed property. Res-
pondent-plaintiff's suit for eviction of the appellants was dismissed by
the trial court. The High Court in revision set aside the judgment and
order of the trial court and decreed the suit for ejectment of the tenants-
;ippellants. The tenants appealed to this Court.
D
Dismissing the appeal, the Court,
HELD: Under the provisions of sub-section (2) of Section 2 of the
. U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act,
1972, newly-constructed buildings stand exempted from the operation
~
E
of the Act for a period of ten years, which has to be computed from a
date to be determined in the manner indicated in Explanation I to
section 2(2), which in this case Is the date on which first assessment of
the premises in dispute was made for house-tax by the Nagar Pallka, I.e.
October 1, 1976. Provisions of Sections 39 and 40 are of no avail to the
appellants as the suit for their eviction was not pending on July 15,
F
1972, when the Act came into force; the suit being filed much later after
coming into force of the Act. Provisions of the Act are not applicable to
the appellants' case and the protection thereunder granted to the ten·
>-
ants is not available to them. [166G-H; 164C, Fl
In view of the fact that the appellants had been carrying on bust-
G ness in the premises in question for a long time, the decree for eviction
directed not to be executed till March 31, 1988, subject to the appel·
lants' filing usual undertaking (within four weeks). [167C-D)
'
Om Prakash Gupta, etc. v. Dig Vijendrapal Gupta, etc., [1982) 3
I
S.C.R. 491 and Vineet Kumar v. Mangat Sain Wadhera, [1985) A.I.R.
H S.C. 817, relied upon by the appellants.
158
N.K. MARWAH v. SMT. SAMUNDRI (OZA, J.]
159
-f
Firm Amar Nath Basheshar Das v. Tek Chand, [1972) 3 S.C.R.
A
922, relied upon by the respondent.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 3909
of 1986.
From the Judgment and Order dated 29.9.1986 of the Allahabad
B
High Court in C.R. No. 83 of 1986.
r'
Shanker Ghosh and P.K. Jain, for the Appellants.
-
Y.S. Chitale, Madan Lokur, Prashant Bhushan, Beni Parshad,
Rajinder Dhawan and Jitendra Sharma for the Respondents.
c
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
J.
OZA, J. l'his appeal arises out of a judgment passed by the High
Court of Allahabad in Civil Revision No. 83 of 1986 wherein the
learned Judge of the High Court allowed the revision petition set aside
D
the judgment and decree of the Trial Judge and decreed the plaintiff
suit for ejectment of the appellant. The disputed property was let out
on June 25, 1976. The accommodation was for the first time assessed
for house-tax by the Nagar Palika Ghaziabad with effect from October
. ~
1, 1976. The suit was filed for eviction after termination of tenancy
before the trial court and objection was raised that as the shop and the
E
basement were separately Jet out the tenancy could not be terminated
by a single notice that would 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
F
\_ whether the provisions of U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Let-
ting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 ('Act' for short) will be applicable
to these proceedings in view of the fact that although the premises
were Jet 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
G
the protection available under this Act will not be available to the
tenant .
.. .
High Court after discussing various decisions came to the conclu-
sion that in view of the language of Section 2 sub-clause 2 Explanation
H
1, it could not be doubted that period of 10 years will commence from
160
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[ 1988] 1 S.C.R.
A
the date of assessment i.e. October J, 1976 that it is in that view of the
,--:.,-
matter that the learnedExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.