SURESH KUMAR JAIN versus SHANTI SWARUP JAIN AND ORS.

Citation: [1996] SUPP. 9 S.C.R. 28 · Decided: 21-11-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: G.N. RAY · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
SURESH KUMAR JAIN 
v. 
SHANTI SWARUP JAIN AND ORS. 
NOVEMBER 21, 1996 
B 
[G.N. RAY AND G.B. PATIANAIK, JJ.] 
Rent Control and Eviction : 
U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 
C 1972: Section 2(2) Expln. I & proviso and S.20. 
Completion of building-Deemed date of-Statutory period of exemp-
tion-From applicability of Act-For purpose of computation of-Completion 
of building reported to municipality-Notice under S.143 of U.P. 
Municipalities Act issued to landlord and reply thereto received-Sub-
D sequently, official of Municipality inspected building and recorded that part 
of building rented out was well constructed-After hearing landlord, 
Municipality passed house tax assessment order in respect of building-But 
due to litigation assessment came into effect after delay of about three 
years-Later on landlord instituted suit in Court of Small Causes for eviction 
E of tenant-Held : Date of completion of tenanted premises is as recorded by · 
official of municipality and not date of coming into effect of assessment order 
was deemed date of completion of building for determining if suit was filed 
within statutory period of JO years for applicability of Act---Act a beneficial 
legislation-Hence, keeping in mind purpose of Ac~ broad-based interpreta-
tion of expression '"otherwise recorded" used in Expln. I to S.2(2) called 
F fo,-{f.P. Municipalities Act, 1916, Ss. 143 and 182-Transfer of Property Act, 
1882, S.106. 
G 
H 
Section 2(2)-£xemption under-Object and scope of such exemption 
explained. 
Sections 2(2) and 21>-£viction suit-Filed in Court of Small Causes 
and not in appropriate forum under Act on ground of inapplicability of 
Act-Held : Onus to prove strictly that building was constructed within 
statutory period of exemption, lay on landlord. 
Section 2(2)-completion of building-Deemed date of-Determina-
28 
S.KR. JAIN v. S.S. JAIN 
29 
tion of-By appreciating and interpreting municipal records and assessment A 
proceedings-Nature of-Held : such detem1ination involved mixed question 
of law and fact and not a mere finding of fact simplicitor-Hence, inteiference 
under Arl. 136 with concwrent findings of fact by cowts below was not 
improper-Co11stitutio11 of India, 1950, Arl. 136. 
Words. and Phrases : 
"Otherwise recorded''-Meaning of-In the context of U.P. Urban Build-
ings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, S.2(2), Explanation 
!(a). 
The appellant was inducted as a tenant on the ground floor of a 
building within the limits of municipality by the landlord-respondent in 
1973. The Municipality gave a notice to the respondent under Section 143 
B 
c 
of the U.P. Municipalities Act, 1916 fixing the annual valuation of the 
building and inviting his objections, if any. In reply to the said notice the D 
respondent raised certain objections but did not state that the construc-
tion of the building was not completed. The Section Head Clerk inspected 
the building on 30-1-1978 and filed a report recording that the ground floor 
and the first floor had been rented respectively and the second floor of the 
building was in possession of the respondent-owner. In the said report it 
was indicated that the shop was well constrncted. The Municipality in-
E 
timated the respondent of a date of hearing and after that date passed an 
order of assessment of house tax which was challenged by the respondent 
and ultimately came into effect from 1-4-1981 on the conclnsion of litiga-
tion. The respondent instituted a sui( for eviction of the appellant in the 
Small Causes Court in 1990. The suit was decreed and the finding of the F 
trial court was upheld in revision by the Additional District Jndge. The 
High Court dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant-tenant. Being 
aggrieved the appellant preferred the present appeal. 
On behalf of the appellant-tenant it was contended that the expres-
sion "otherwise recorded" used in Explanation I to Section 2(2) of the U.P. G 
~ ,, 
Urban Bnildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 
should be given the widest possible meaning and, therefore, the exemption 
period (10 years) started on 30-1-1978 when the Head Clerk had recorded 
that the building was complete; and that the eviction suit was barred under 
Section 20 of the Rent Act. 
H 
30 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1996] SUPP. 9 S.C.R. 
A 
On behalf of the respondent-landlord it was contended that the 
B 
perio~f exemption commenced from the date of co

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