SHIV KUMAR Vs. JAWAHAR LAL VERMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Leave granted.

(2.) The suit for eviction on the ground of arrears of rent was filed by the appellant on 11-9-1973 after the coming into force of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (for short the Act.) In the plaint it was averred that the Act would not apply to the lease of the demised premises viz. a shop because the shop had been constructed only in the year 1966, and as such, the shop was exempted from the purview of the Act for a period of ten years as provided for in S. 2(2) of the Act. The respondents raised various defences to the action but we are now concerned only with the tenability of one of those defences viz. that the shop was covered by the Act and as such the respondents were entitled to claim the benefit conferred by S. 39 of the Act on tenants who were in arrears of rent.

(3.) During the pendency of the suit, in the month of February 1976, the respondents made an application to the trial Court to direct the appellant to disclose the date of construction of the shop as the plaintiff failed to disclose the date and it only contained a general averment that the shop had been constructed in the year 1966. As no information was forthcoming, the respondents filed another application on 12-3-1966 for the self same purpose. After waiting for some time the respondents deposited the arrears of rent together with interest etc. as provided for in S. 39 of the Act in April, 1976 and after they had made the deposit, the appellant furnished information to the effect that though the shop had been constructed in 1965, it was assessed to house tax for the first time on 1-1-1966 and therefore the date of construction for purpose of S. 2(2) would be the 1st of January, 1966. The trial court accepted the statement of the appellant regarding the date of construction of the shop being 1-1-1976 and took the view that since the respondents had failed to deposit the arrears of rent etc. within one month from that date but had despoited the arrears only in the month of April 1976, the respondent were not entitled to claim the benefit under S. 39.