VINEET KUMAR versus MANGAL SAIN WADHERE

Citation: [1984] 2 S.C.R. 333 · Decided: 05-01-1984 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.P. SEN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

• 
• 
·~· 
, 
• 
' 
333 
VINEET KUMAR 
, ' V, 
, . 
~ 
MANGAL SAIN WADHERE 
• 
January, ·s, !984 
• 
[A, P. SEN AND.R, B. MISRA: JJ.j 
Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings ·(Regulation of 1,,etting, Rent aud·. Eviction.) 
, Act, l 972 Section 2---:-lnterpretation of-fVhethel· the pretnises which was not ten 
years did' on the· date of the suit and wus exen1pted fro111 the operadon of t!te new 
Rent Act can he goi·erned by it, if ten yeilrs e.\pircd during the pe11de11c_v of the litiga- · 
lion so a.s: to._ attract the be1iefit of S.39'fo the tentiut-Cau~·e of action ",w1bsequen1 e1•C111s" 
and "a111end11rent" explained 
· Section· 2 of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings '(Regulation of Letting, Rent 
and EViction) Act, 1972 exempts fro1n operation of the ;\ct various .kinds of buil· 
dings 'specified in sub section (1). 
Sub section (2) of SectiOn 2 co:rite1nplritcs .that 
the new Re.n( Act \viii. nOt apply to a building during a p~rfod of ten years, fron1 
thC ct'ate On \Vhich its cOnsLruction is completed. 
Explanation I to ~ub Glause (2) 
e1uunerates the dates on which the·.building shall be dcen1ed to.have been completed 
, viz., (1) the date of which the con1pletion thereof is reported to or othenvisc re· 
c"ord,ed by .the local authority having jurisdiction; (ii) in the case of building subject 
· to assessment that date on which the first assessment thereof comes into. effect. 
(iii) Where the said ·dates are different, the earlie.st of the said .dates and (iv) in 
the -absence of any report recorcl. or asscss1nent, the date on which it: is actually 
occuPied for the first time: 
• 
:rhe respondent lftndlord filed a. sUit for eviction afid for arrears of rent and 
da1nages for use and" occupation p"e'ndent iite and future on the allegation that the 
·appellant was inducted as a tenant of the premises i.1i sult on a monthly rent of 
. Rs. 250 on 7th .February 1972, ihat the building in suit was con.structed 'in 1971 
under the Cooperative Housing Scheme of the State Bank of India for whi~h ihe 
bank-adVanced loan. that the building was assessed to house,. and \.vatcT tax on 
1st of October 1971 and as such the bU:ilding was not covered by the u.P. Urban . 
Buiidings (Regulatiori of Letting, Rent arid Eviction) Act, 1972 and that the appellri.nt 
. defau'lted in the payn1ent of rent despite notice dated 24th March 1977. 
The 
appellant' resisted the si.iit and coritended. that the new Act applied as the buildin_g 
in· question \Vas constructed in 1968, that he' had cleared rent upto 6th Apiil 77 
and th<!-t as a n1.atter of fact a sun1 of Rs. •ODO spent by hi1n towards repairs etc 
was due fron1 the Respondent landlord. 
, 
The Third Additional District Judge negatived' the defence and decreed the 
suit for cfiction as also for recovery of arre<lrs of 1:ent and damag~s for use and 
, occupation. The Trial court found that not .only both the conditions stated in 
'.Section, 2(2) but also the 1 S years' exe1nption applied to the instanJ case. 
Th~ High Court in revision acCepted the finding of the trial judge that the 
A 
B 
c 
D 
F 
ff 
.. 
B 
.. 
334 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1984] 2 s.c.P., 
building in quesJion will be deen1ed to .have been co1npleted on 1st 0ctober 1971, 
the date of assessment of ·house tax and water tax and caiculating frOn1 that date 
the building .\vas not. ten years old on the date ·Of the suit an<l there'forc, the RC'1 
rCnt- Act' had no'· application to the building. in suit and· the appellant cannot get 
·any protec~iori of the Rent Control Act. 
The .High Court confirmed the fi_ndihgs 
·of .the'trial court ·on aU-other point~ except the fihding -·about the amOunts 'of rent 
.and· the allowe_d the aI,>peal in part'.'t. 
Allowing the appeal partialfy~ the Court 
• 
• 
·' 
HELD: 1 ~1. The_provision ofthe Uttar Pradesh Urban Building{R.egllla~ 
tion of Letting, Rent and EViction) Act_ 1972 ·will be attract~d, .if the building coni-
·f>letes "ten years during the cou~se Or litigation. [340 0-Hl 
. 
1 :2. 'In the instant" case, tli:e bui.ldirtg will be deemed to.have beeRcompleted 
on the date of assessment which "".as.1st OCto.ber, 1971. Reckoning fr~m this dit.te 
oLcompletion, the new Rent A.ct woul.d become applicable. Admittedly the bui1-
d~ng was not ten yeitrs old on the date of sUit. But during the pendeiicy ·of t.he 
litigation it co1npleted. ten years by 23rd February l 982 wheri-the Additibnal pistrict 
Jll;dge decide.d the case; entitling the appellant tO claim the· benefit of Section .
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.