SHRI SURENDRA KUMAR JAIN versus SHRI SHANTI SWAROOP JAIN AND ORS.

Citation: [1995] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 304 · Decided: 24-07-1995 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: G.N. RAY, S.B. MAJMUDAR · Disposal: Disposed off
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
SHRI SURENDRA KUMAR JAIN 
v 
SHRI SHANTI SW AROOP JAIN AND ORS. 
JULY 24, 1995 
[G.N. RAY AND S.B. MAJMUDAR, JJ.] 
U.P. Urban Building (Regulation of Letting Rent and Eviction) Act, 
1972: Section 2(2)-Explanation l(a)-E,arliest dated of deemed constrnc-
tion-Detennination of 
In this appeal the question that arose for consideration was as to 
which would be the earliest date of deemed construction in terms of 
Explanation l(e) of Sub-section (2) of 5.2 of the U.P. Urban Building 
(Regulation of Letting Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972. 
D 
Disposing of the appeal, this Court 
HELD : 1. In terms of Explanation l(a) S.2(2) of the U.P. Urban 
Building (Regulation of Letting Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, the construc-
tion is deemed to have been completed on the date on which the completion 
E 
thereof is reported to or otherwise recorded by the local authority having 
jurisdiction if· such reporting or recording happens to be on the earliest 
point of time vis-a-vis various dates referred to therein. Since that date is 
the earliest of the dates as referred to in the Explanation l(a), the date of 
giving notice for assessment becomes relevant for the purpose of consider-
ing deemed date of construction. It does not appear that such considera-
F 
tion has been made by the High Court in deciding the case. The High Court 
has proceeded on the footing only on the basis of the assessment effected 
• 
in 1981. (305-F, H, 306-A-B] 
Om Prakash Gupta Etc. Etc. v. DIG Vijendrapal Gupta Etc. Etc., 
G 
(19821 2 sec 61, distinguished. 
2. The impugned decision of the High Court is set aside and remitted 
back to the High Court for disposal on merits in the light of the present 
discussion, preferably within a period of four months. The High Court will 
de~ide as to which is the earliest date of deemed construction in terms of 
H Explanation l(a) sub-section (2) of Section 2 of the said Act for the 
304 
S.K. JAIN v. S.S. JAIN 
305 
purpose of deciding the dispute involved in the case. Until the matter is A 
disposed of by the High Court, there will be stay of eviction from the 
disputed premises. (306-D-E] 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 6546 of 
1995. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 23.1.95 of the Allahabad High 
Court in C.M.W.P. No. 1558 of 1995. 
Dr. AM Singhvi and Rakesh K. Sharma for the Appellants. 
B 
Kapil Sibbal, K.B. Rohtagi, Ms. Aparna Rohtagi, Praveen Jain and C 
P.K. Jain, for the Respondents. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : ' 
Leave granted. 
Resi'ondent No. 1 has already entered appearance. Notice of the 
appeal need not be served on respondent Nos. 2 and 3 who are formal 
parties and such notice on them is dispensed with. 
Heard learned counsel for the parties. It appears to us that for the 
purpose of deciding the date of construction it is necessary to refer to 
Explanation 1 (a) of Section 2(2) of the U.P. Urban Building (Regulation 
of Letting Rent and Eviction) Act 1972. In the Explanation to the said 
Section it has been indicated that the construction of a building shall be 
deemed to have been completed on the date on which completion thereof 
is reported to or otherwise recorded by local authority having jurisdiction 
and in the case of building subject to a'ssessment, the date on which the 
D 
E 
F 
first assessment thereof comes into effect and where the said dates are 
different, the earliest of the said dates and in the absence of any such 
report record or assessment, the date on which it is actually occupied not 
merely for the purpose of supervising the construction or granting the G 
building under constitution) for the first time. 
It, therefore, appears that in terms of Explanation 1 (a) the construc-
tion is deemed to have been completed on the date on which the comple-
tion thereof is reported to or otherwise recorded by the local authority 
having jurisdiction if such reporting or recording happens to be on the H 
306 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995) SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 
A 
earliest point of time vis-a-vis various dates referred to hereinbefore. It is 
contended that in the instant case, the Municipal Authority having given 
notice for assessment on 15.11.77, such date should be held to be the date 
when the Municipal Authority had already taken note of the construction 
of the building. Since that date is the earliest of the dates as ref erred to in 
B 
c 
the Explanation l(a), that date becomes relevant for the purpose of con-
sidering deemed date of constru
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.