SATYA NARAIN PANDEY Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These matters involve the interpretation of S. 2(l)(d) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, (Act No. 13 of 1972), (hereinafter referred to as ' the Act'). Section 2(1) of the Act exempts certain classes of buildings from the application of the Act. One such exemption, under cl. (d) is in respect of :

(2.) The building known as Prem Talkies, situated in Mohalla Sahadatpura, Maunath Bhanjan, District Azamgarh, U.P., belongs to Behari Lal Tandon and five others, (hereinafter referred to as 'the landlords'). They had let out the building to Sunil Sharma and another. Though the landlords claim that the lease was of the building along with certain fixtures, it has to be taken for the purposes of the present proceedings that the lease to Sharma was the lease of the building simpliciter and that the building was then subject to the provisions of the Act.This was the finding given in the suit for eviction which the landlords had instituted against the Sharmas. That decree has since become final and the respondents have made out before us no grounds to differ from that finding. The landlord succeeded in obtaining delivery of vacant possession of the building from the Sharmas on 30-9-1984.

(3.) It appears that the Sharmas had filed a revision petition in the High Court against the eviction order, which was eventually dismissed on 1st August, 1985. The landlords claim that, subsequent to the recovery of possession, they wished to let out the building along with plant, machinery, furniture and apparatus installed therein for running a cinema theatre. However, steps in this direction by way of renovation of the building, installation of plant, machinery, new furniture and electrical fittings and the execution of a lease deed could be embarked upon only after the revision petition of the Sharmas was dismissed. They claim that they proceeded to do the needful. Thereafter on 5th Feb. 86, and agreement of lease was executed between the landlords and the Mehrotras (respondents in the matters before us). Under this agreement, the Mehrotras agreed to take the building fully equipped with projector, machines, fixtures and furniture in full running condition for a period of five years with an option to renew for a further period of two years, on certain terms and conditions which are not relevant for our present purposes. It was provided that the Mehrotras should obtain a cinematographic licence from the appropriate authorities by the end of the year 1987, failing which the lease agreement would stand cancelled. It is claimed that a generator was purchased on 20th June, 1986 and a projector on 22-9-1986 and that these were duly installed in the building on 26-10-1986. A lease deed pursuant to the agreement of lease between the landlords and the Mehrotras was entered into on 30-12-1986, more or less broadly on the same terms as the agreement of lease referred to. It is claimed that actual physical possession of the building was given to the Mehrotras on the 8th of January, 1987.