GIRISH CHANDRA GOYAL Vs. BIMALA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Leave granted.

(2.) Appellant herein is the tenant of the disputed shop. The respondent-landlords filed a suit for eviction of the appellant herein after terminating the tenancy before the Small Causes Court, Aligarh. The defendant-appellant filed a written statement wherein he took plea that since the uttar Pradesh Urban buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) is applicable to the premises in dispute, the suit filed by the landlords is not maintainable. The trial court was of the view that since the disputed tenanted shop was constructed on an old construction, thus the new construction made by the landlords is not a new construction and, therefore, the Act is applicable to the premises. In view of that matter, suit was dismissed. The revision filed by the respondents was allowed by the revisional court. The revisional court found that the construction made by the landlords was a new construction and since 10 years from the date of construction has not expired, the Act is not applicable to the premises. Aggrieved, the tenant preferred a writ petition before the High court of Allahabad, which was dismissed. It is against the said judgment, the appellant has filed this appeal.

(3.) Learned Counsel appearing for the appellant urged that where a new construction is made on an old construction after demolition, such a case would fall under Clause (C) of Explanation I to subsection (2) of Section 2 of the Act and, therefore, the Act ;s applicable to premises in dispute. It is alleged there was a godown and a garage. The landlords in the year 1979 applied to the aligarh Development Authority for sanctioning the map for construction of house where the old building existed. The said map was sanctioned on 26th march, 1979. The perusal of the map shows that the sanction for construction was for a new construction in place of an old building. The new construction was assessed towards house tax on 1st October, 1980. On these facts, the revisional court and the High Court found that the disputed shop was a new construction constructed in the year 1980 and since 10 years from the date of first assessment have not expired, the Act is not applicable to the shop. We do not find any infirmity in the orders passed either by the revisional court or the High Court.