RAMESH CHANDRA versus IIIRD ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE AND OTHERS

Citation: [1992] 1 S.C.R. 349 · Decided: 22-01-1992 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: L.M. SHARMA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

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

Judgment (excerpt)

RAMESH CHANDRA 
A 
v. 
IIIRD ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE AND OTHERS 
JANUARY 22, 1992 
[LALIT MOHAN SHARMA, V. RAMASW AMI AND 
B 
B.P JEEV AN REDDY, JJ.] 
U.f' Urban Buildings (Reg11/111io11 ~{letting, Rem and Eviction) Act, 
1972: 
Sections 2 (2), 20 (2), and 39-AJ!Jllication of Act excluded to any C 
- ·.f 
building during ten years.from date qf cnmJl/etion of constniction---Bui/ding 
cons1111cted in 1968-Suit for eviction constituted in I 977-Whether Act 
aJIJIIicable to the suii building-ExJ1i1y of statutOI)' Jleriod qf ten years 
during pendency of suit/appeal/revision-Whether makes the Act applica-
ble. 
J._ 
Tran.~fer a/Property Act, 18JJ2 : Section I 06. 
The appellant-landlord instituted a suit in the year 1977 for 
eviction of the respondent-tenant from the suit premises, after giv-
D 
ing a notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 
1882, terminating the tenancy. The landlord claimed that since the 
E 
house in question was constructed in 1968, the U.P. Urban Buildings 
(Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 did not apply 
to it. 
The respondent-tenant contended that the building was an old 
construction and hence the Act was applicable, and since none of 
F 
the grounds mentioned in Sub-section (2) of Section 20 of the Act 
was made out, a decree for ejectment could not be passed. 
The Trial ·Court held that the Act applied to the house and 
accordingly, proceeded to decide the case on merits and dismissed 
t~suil 
G 
The appellant-landlord's revision under Section 25 of the Pro-
vincial Small Causes Courts Act was allowed by the Hird Addi-
tional District Judge, holding that since the house was constructed 
in the year 1968, the Act did not apply till 1.9.78, and though ben-
efit of Section 39 of the Act was available to the tenant, since he did 
H 
349 
350 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[I 992] I S.C.R. 
A 
not comply with the requirements of the said section, it did not 
come to his rescue. 
However, on appeal by the ten,;1nt, the High Court held that 
the Act applied even to the buildings constructed prior to the com-
mencement of the Act and since none of the grounds mentioned in 
B 
the said Sub-section (2) of Section 20 was satisfied, th~ suit was 
liable to fail. 
In the appeal before this Court, on behalf of the landlord-
appellant it was contended that since the suit was instituted prior to· 
1.9. 78 it was saved and had to he decided without reference to the 
C 
Act. . 
On behalf of the respondent-tenant it was contended that the 
house was an old one, and it was merely repaired in the year 1968, 
and that the tenant was entitled to the benefit of Section 39, and 
that since the statutory period of ten years expired during the pendency 
D 
of the suit, the Act became applicable and the suit must be disposed 
of only in accordance with the provisions of the Act and in particu-
lar, Sub-section (2) of Section 20. 
Allowing the appeal, this Court, 
E 
HELD : I.I The U.P Urban Building (Regulations of Letting, 
Rent and Evictittn) Act, 1972 came into force on and with effect 
from 15th JUly, 19n. Sub-section (2) of Section 2 of the 1972 Act 
declares that the Act would not apply to a building during a period 
of 10 years from the date on which its construction was completed. 
Explanation (1) to Suh-section (2) explains when the construction of 
F 
building should be deemed to have been completed. (353 B, C, DJ 
G 
H 
1.2. In the instant case, the District Judge has recorded a find-
ing based on relevant and proper evidence that the building in ques-
tion was constructed in the year 1968, as claimed by the appellant-
landlord. Thus, it is clear that it was constructed prior to the com-
mencement of the Act. The United Provinces (Temporary) Control 
of Rent and Eviction Act, 1947, which was repealed by the 1972 Act 
did not apply to it, because it was constructed subsequent to 1951. 
The suit was instituted on 1.6.1977 i.e., prior to the completion of 
10 years' period from the date of its construction. The Act would 
not apply to a building for a period of ten years after the comple-
tion of its construction. Therefore, the construction of the buiiding 
-
RAMESH CHANDRA v. DISTRICT JUDGE [REDDY, J. J 
351 
in question having been completed in August 1968, the 10 years' 
A 
period.extends upto August, 1978, whereas the present .suit for evie-
tion was filed long prior thereto. Therefore, the suit as instituted 
had to be disposed of without reference to the Act. The mere fact 
t

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