OM PRAKASH GUPTA ETC. versus DIG VIJENDRAPAL GUPTA ETC.

Citation: [1982] 3 S.C.R. 491 · Decided: 05-03-1982 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.D. KOSHAL · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 8 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

• 
491 
A 
OM PRAKASH GUPTA ETC. 
v. 
DIG VIJENDRAPAL GUPTA ETC. 
ii~­
March 5, 1982 
[A.D. KosHAL, V. BA.LAKRISHNA BRAD! AND 
R.B. MISRA, JJ.J 
U.P. Urban Building• (&gu/ation of Letting, &nt and Eviction) Act 1972. 
S.2 (1) and Expln.1 ands. 39. 
Applicability of th• Act-Act not to apply to building for a period of t411 
~ 
ytars from 'date of completion of construction'. 
B 
c 
Date of completion of construction--What is-' Date of first assessmen1• 
if asussed-'Date of occupation' when no record of completion of construction or of 
D 
asstssnunt. · 
Interpretation of Statutes-Intention of legislature-To ht ascertain«/ 
primarily Jrom words 11std by legislative-Question of interpretation .arises whtlt 
language ambiguous. 
Tho U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Lotting, Rent and (Eviction) 
Act, 1972 provided by sub~section (2) of section 2 that except as provided in the 
Act, the Act was not to apply to a building during a period of 10 years from the 
date on which its construction was completed. Explanation I to the sub-section 
provided that the building shaU be deemed t<;> have been completed on the date 
on which completion thereof is reported or otherwise recorded by the local 
authorities having jurisdiction, and in 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 date, and in the absence of any 
such report, record or assessment, the date on which it is actually occupied for 
the first time. 
The appellant-tenant was in occupation of a shop from the 16th June, 
1967 and prior to his occupation the shop was in occupation of another tenant 
for about a month and a half. The first a8'essment of tho shop took place on 
!st of April, 1968. The respondent-landlord filed a suit for the eviction of the 
tenant on the ground that the Act did not apply to the shop ·and the tenant was 
liable to eviction. 
F 
G 
The Trial Judge finding that the construction of the shop was completed 
H 
in the year 1967 and that 10 years having not elapsed since then, held that tho 
provisions of tho Act did not apply and decreed tho suit. The appellant's 
A 
8 
c 
492 
SUPRBMB COURT REPORTS 
[1982] 3 s.c.R. 
petition under section 25 of the Provincial Small Causes Courts Act was dis .. 
missed. In bis revision petition to the-High Court under section llS of the Civil 
Procedure Code the appellant contended that the date of occupation should be 
taken to be the date of completion of the construction of the shop and not the 
date of first assessment. The High Court overruled the contention and held that 
the constru:tion of the shop would be deemed to have been completed on 1st of 
April, 1968 the date of the first assessment and ten years not having elapsed, 
the Act would not be applicable to the building and dismissed the revision 
petition. 
In the appeal to this Court it was contended on behalf of the appellant: 
(1) that by Virtue of sub-s~ction (2) of s'!ction 2, the Act would be applicable to 
the shop in question and that the e.:ttemption created by the sub-section did not 
embrace bui1diogs constructed prior to the commencement of the Act and (2) 
that the building should be deemed to have been constructed on the date of 
occupation on 16th June, 1967 and not on the date or the first assessment. and 
that the appellant wa~ entitled to the benefit of section 39 of the Act. 
Dismissing the appeal, 
D 
HELD: l(i) The suit was rightly decreed by the Courts below. The 
Act had no application and the appellant could not be given the benefit of section 
39. [498 G-H] 
(ii) Primarily, the language employed is the determining factor of the 
intention of the legislature. The first and primary rule of construction is'that the 
intenti~n of the legislature must be _found in the words used by the legislature 
E 
itself. The question of interpretation arises only when the language is ambigUoua 
and, therefore capable of two interpretations. [497 F) 
F 
G 
H 
(iii) The language of sub-section (2) of section Z of the Act is explict 
and unambiguous and is not capable of two interpretations. [497 Gl 
In 'the absence of ally ambiguity there is no question of taking any 
external aid for the interpretation of the sub-section. 
The sub-section contem-
plates that the Act shall not apply to a building during a period of 10 yesrs from 
the date on which its construction is completed. It no where says that the build-
ing 

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