Allahabad High Court
M/S Madhur Instalments Ltd., ... vs Anil Kumar on 9 July, 2019
Bench: Surya Prakash Kesarwani
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Court No. - 5
Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 5148 of 2019
Petitioner :- M/S Madhur Instalments Ltd., Meerut
Respondent :- Anil Kumar
Counsel for Petitioner :- Chandra Bhan Gupta
Counsel for Respondent :- Sumit Daga
Hon'ble Surya Prakash Kesarwani,J.
Heard Sri Chandra Bhan Gupta, learned counsel for the tenant-petitioner and Sri Sumit Daga, learned counsel for the respondent-landlord.
Briefly stated facts of the present case are that undisputedly the petitioner was inducted as a tenant for two shops in the building bearing Municipal No.45/1, Bhatipura, Delhi Road, Opposite D.N. Inter College, Meerut. By a notice the respondent-landlord determined the tenancy of the tenant-petitioner and thereafter filed SCC Case No.27 of 2012, which was dismissed on the ground that the building was constructed much prior to the year 1985 since it was assessed to house tax in the year 1976-81 and, therefore, the provisions of U.P. Act No.13 of 1972 are applicable. The respondent-landlord filed S.C.C. Revision No.49 of 2016 (Anil Kumar @ Anil Kumar Jagga Vs. Madhur Installments Limited) which has been allowed by the impugned judgment dated 24.5.2019, passed by the Additional Session Judge/Court No.10, Meerut and the order of the Judge Small Causes Court dated 19.10.2016 in SCC Case No.27 of 2012 has been set aside. The suit has been decreed. Aggrieved with this judgment the tenant-petitioner has filed the present petition.
Learned counsel for the tenant-petitioner submits that the building in question was first assessed by the Municipal Corporation in the year 1976, which fact is evident from the copy of Chittha (paper No.10 Ga and 153 Ga) wherein the construction is mentioned as one room, one tin shed, saw mill and open land. He, therefore, submits that since the building over the disputed land was first subjected to assessment by the municipal corporation, Meerut, much prior to the year 1985, therefore, in view of the provisions of Section 2(2) of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 read with explanation I (a), the provision of the U.P. Act XIII of 1972 are applicable.
Learned counsel for the respondent-landlord supports the impugned judgment.
No other argument has been advanced by the parties before me.
I have carefully considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties.
Section 2(2) read with explanation I (a) provides a deeming clause that the construction of a building shall be deemed to have been completed on the date on which the completion thereof is reported to or otherwise recorded by the local authority having jurisdiction, and in the case of a building subject to assessment, the date on which the 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 including occupation merely for the purposes of supervising the construction or guarding the building under construction for the first time. Clause (b) provides that "construction" includes any new construction in place of an existing building which has been wholly or substantially demolished. Clause (c) provides that where such substantial addition is made to an existing building that the existing building becomes only a minor part thereof. The whole of the building including the existing building shall be deemed to be constructed on the date of completion of the said addition.
Undisputedly facts of the present case are that over the land in question there was a room, a tin shed and a saw mill in the year 1976. The annual value of the construction existing at that time was Rs.1,200/- and the municipal tax was assessed at Rs.180/- which fact is evident from the entry made with black ink in the Nagar Nigam Chittha of the year 1976-81. Subsequently, the respondent-landlord constructed all together a new building over the land in question by taking loan from the Canara Bank. Evidence of loan taken from Canara Bank were filed as paper No. 36 Ga and 38 Ga. After the building was constructed in the year 1987-1988, its annual valuation was assessed at Rs.2,48,616/- w.e.f. 1.10.1988 and the House Tax was assessed at Rs. 30,552/-. The entry in this regard was made in the Chittha by order of the sub committee dated 15.5.1990. The construction was also mentioned with red ink as one hall, stair, galary, Canara Bank and one shop of three shutter under tenancy of the petitioner, one hall under tenancy of Tulsi w.e.f. 1.04.1990 and entry of letting out of three shops to Arvind, M.K. Jain and S. Barfa were recorded. The correspondence with the Nagar Nigam as paper No.35 Ga and 22 Ga and house tax deposit receipt being paper No.23Ga, 24 Ga, 25 Ga were also filed in evidence to establish construction of the building in question in the year 1987-88 and 1990. Thus, the construction of the building was well proved to be after 26.4.1985 and, therefore, the provisions of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 were rightly held not to be applicable.
The findings recorded by the revisional court in the impugned order are findings of fact based on consideration of relevant evidences on record. No factual or legal infirmity could be pointed out by learned counsel for the petitioners. Therefore, I do not find, any merit in this petition. For all the reasons aforestated, I do not find any merit in this petition. Consequently, the petition is dismissed.
Order Date :- 9.7.2019/vkg
