SALEEM versus DISTRICT JUDGE, MUZAFFARNAGAR AND ORS.

Citation: [1998] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 625 · Decided: 15-09-1998 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. MAJMUDAR · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

SALEEM 
v. 
DISTRICT JUDGE, MUZAFFARNAGAR AND ORS. 
SEPTEMBER 15, 1998 
(S.B. MAJMUDAR AND JAGANNADHA RAO, JJ.] 
U.P. Urba11 Buildi11gs (Regulatio11 of Lelli11g, Rent and Evictio11) Act, 
1972 : Seclio11 2(2}-Expla11atio11 1. 
A 
B 
Rent Act-Newly co11Stmcted buildi11gs-l1111111111ity from protective C 
provisions of the Act for a period of ten years-Reckoning of such 
period-Suit premises-First assessed by Municipality 011 1.4. 1982-No 
evidence of cm1stmclio11 piior to the date of assessment--Held period of ten 
years to be counted from the date of first assessment-Tax: assessment register 
and house co11stmctio11 register of M1111icipality-&tracts from-Evidentiary 
N~~ 
D 
TI1e landlord (respondent No. 3) filed a suit under U.P. Urban 
Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 seeking 
eviction of the appellant-tenant from a shop occupied by the latter. TI1e 
case of the landlord was that the shop was newly constructed and first 
assessed to house tax on 1.4.1982 by the Municipal Board; as the Rent Act 
was not applicable for a period of ten years from date of first assessment 
of the shop and as the tenant was in arrears of rent he was liable to be 
evicted. The landlord relied upon extracts of tax assessment register of the 
Municipality to show that from 1972-73 to 313.1982 the place where the 
suit shop was constructed was only a plot. 
On the other hand the case of the appellant was that he was a tenant 
since 1977. As more than ten years had elapsed since construction, the 
Rent Act was not applicable to the suit shop. To prove his case he relied 
E 
F 
on extracts from house construction register of Municipality to show that G 
construction was already existing on the plot as water connection was 
taken by the landlord on 1.11.1973 for domestic purpose. 
The Trial Court decreed the eviction suit holding that as on the date 
of filing of the suit in 1991 ten years had not elapsed from the date of first 
assessment of the suit shop, the Rent Act was not applicable. The tenant H 
625 
626 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1998) SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 
A unsuccessfully carried the matter in revision. The High Court held that 
the protection of Rent Act was not available to the suit shop in view of the 
provisions of Explanation l to sub-section (2) of Section 2 as ten years 
were to he counted for the purpose of such explanation from 1.4.1982 when 
the suit shop was first assessed by the Municipal autl1ority. The tenant 
B preferred as appeal before this Court. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD : 1. The period of ten years has to be counted from the date 
of first assessment i.e. 1.4.1982. Under the scheme of Section 2 of the Act, 
C only the newly constructed buildings are given immunity from being 
governed by the protective provisions of the Rent Act for a period of ten 
years. The said period starts form the date of completion of the construc-
tion of the buildings concerned. However, for deciding the question of 
im!"unity the deemed date of construction of building is provided in 
D Explanation I to sub-section (2) of Section 2 of the Rent Act. [630-C, DJ 
2. In the instant case no evidence is available on record to show as 
to whether the municipal authorities had issued any notice or it recorded 
construction of the premises at any time prior to the date of assessment 
i.e. 1.4.1982. Once such evidence is absent and was not available and tbe 
E only evidt'uce available was the date of first assessment i.e. 1.4. 1982 as per 
Explanation I to sub-section (2) of Section 2, the only date which could 
have been taken into consideration for deciding the question whether ten 
years had elapsed from the date of construction of the building was the 
date of assessment i.e. 1.4.1982; ten years bad to be counted from that date. 
F The appellant's submission that even de hors the Explanation and the 
conditions mentioned therein prior occupation of the premises by the 
tenant should be relevant, cannot be countenanced. [631-C, D, E; 632-B} 
G 
3. Reliance placed by the appellant to the extracts of sanction of 
water connection by tlte Municipality especially column 4 thereof wherein 
the word 'house' is mentioned, is of no avail as water connection might 
have been taken on 1.11.1973 but that by itself would not show that the 
construction of the suit shop had come into existence on that date. On the 
contrary, the document relied upon by the landlord clearly indicates that 
the premises continued to be op

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