RAM SWAROOP RAI versus LILAVATHI

Citation: [1980] 3 S.C.R. 1034 · Decided: 07-05-1980 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: V.R. KRISHNA IYER · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
1034 
'RAM SW AROOP RA! 
v. 
\ 
LILAVATHI 
May 7, 1980 
.-------, 
[V. l,l. KRISHNA IYER AND R. S. PATHAK, JJ.] 
U.P. Rent Control Act (Act 13 of 1972), Section 2(2)-Exemption from 
application of the provisions of the Act for the period of ten years in respect 
of uew con.~tructions-Burden of Proof is upon the; landlord and not upnn the 
tenant. 
The respondent landlady 
purchased sliop No. 66 in the city of Jhansi in 
1969 from one Brij Mohan (DW 2), occupied the first floor and allowed the 
appellant/tenant to occupy the ground floor in 1970 on a leaBe deed which 
recited that the building was erected in 1965. 
In 1975, the respondent filed 
the ejection suit on the basis that the bwlding 005 new, that the Act did not 
deter eviction of new constructions put up within ten years of the suit and so 
a decree v:as inevitable. The appellant·tenant resisted the claim on the plea 
that the building was constructed 50. years earlier. The Trial Court negatived 
the defence and decreed eviction and this was upheld by the 
High Court. 
Hence the appeal by special leave to this Court. 
A1lowing the appeal and remanding the m&tte~ to the Trial Court, the Court 
HELD : 1. In the normal course, no doubt the appeal must be dismissed 
as concluded by findings of fact. 
To avoid pos~ible public mischief 
through 
a new .class of litigation for eviction by easy resort to the "new construction," 
expedient, interference under Article 136 of the Constitution is 
necessary. 
[1037 A-BJ 
2. Section 2(2) of the U.P. Act, uses the phrase "nb{_hing 
in the rent 
control legislation shall apply to a building" during a period of ten ·year,s from 
the date on which its construction is completed. In other v,;ords, in regard to 
all buildings the Act applies save where this exemption operates. '11terefo:re the 
landlord who .seeks exemption must prove thai excep'tion. The burden is on 
him to mr.ke out that notwithstanding the rent control legislation, his building 
F 
is out of its ambit. lt is not for the tenant to prove that the building has been 
coDstructed beyond a period of ten years, but it is for the landlady to make 
out that the construction has been completed within ten years of the suit. 
This is sen$ible not merely because the· statute expressly sfates so and thd setting 
unn~cessarily implies so, but also because it is the landlady who knows.. best 
when the building was completed, and not the tenant. As between the two, 
the owner of the building must tell the court when the building was Construct-
G 
ed, and not the tenant thereof. Speaking generally, it is faif that the onus 
of establishing the date of construction of the building is squarely laid on the 
landlord although in a small categotjr of cases where the landlord is a 'purchaser 
from another, he will have to depend on his assignor to prove the fact 
[1038 C-F] 
3. An analysis of Explanation 1 to s. 2(2) of the U.P. Act indicates: 
H 
(I) Where a building has not been assessed, it is the date on which 
the completion was reported to, or otherwise recorded by the local 
authority having jurisdiction. [1038 G-H] 
•
'
•
• 
; > 
RAM SWAROOP V. LILAVATHI 
1035 
(2) Where a building has been assessed,. it is the date on which the first 
A 
assessment comes- into effect. 
Provided that if the date on which the completion was reported, to, 
or otherwise reCQrded by, the local authority is earlier 
Ulan the 
date of the first assessment, the date of completion will be such ear .. 
lier. date. 
[1039' A-BJ 
(3) Where there is no report, record or assessment, it is the date 
Of 
B 
actual oCcupation for the first time (not being an occupation for 
the purpose of supervising the construction or guarding the build· 
ing under construction). [1039 B-CJ 
Unfortunately, it is not possible for the 
purchaser-respondent or the 
teilant-apptllant to give direct testimony about the time of the construction or 
C 
the nature of the construction vis-a-vis Explanation (b) or 
( c) . The best 
testimony is the municipal records about the completion of the building and the 
verification- by the municipal authorities as to whether a new construction '1as 
come into being or an old construction has been remodelled and, if so, when 
. exactly the 
completion 
took 
effect. It 
is 
quite 
conceivable 
that the 
municipal records 
bearing 
on the 
completion of 
the construction 
1 may throw conclusive light, whatever might have been the original proposal 
D 
in the phm submitted. 

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