HARVINDER SINGH Vs. BHAGWANT SINGH AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Shri Gopal Krishan, the learned counsel for the revisionist and Shri P.C. Maulekhi, the learned counsel for the respondents.

(2.) THE applicant is the landlord and filed a suit for eviction under the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act. A specific plea was taken in the plaint that the shop, in question, was constructed in the year 1988-89 and that the house tax was assessed for the first time in the year 1993-94 and, therefore, the shop, in question, is outside the purview of the applicability of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972. The Court below, after considering the material evidence on record, found that the house tax was assessed @ Rs. 360/- p.a. by the Nagar Palika for the first time in the year 1978-79 with regard to one big hall which was being used as a workshop and a tin shed. The Court below also found through documents that house tax was being assessed in the year 1983-84 and again in the year 1988-89 and, therefore, concluded in view of the provision of Section 2 (2) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972, the Act of 1972 was applicable and, therefore, dismissed the suit. The applicant, being aggrieved, has filed the present revision u/s 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act.

(3.) HAVING perused this provision, the Court is of the opinion that necessary details are lacking in the pleadings as well as in the evidence that was brought before the court below. There is nothing to indicate that the addition which was carried out by the landlord in the year 1988-89, was a substantial addition which made the existing building a minor portion of the entire building. On the other had, the plea, which is now being placed forward is, that one extra room was added which was let out as a shop to the opposite parties. Addition of one room cannot become a substantial addition which would take the building out of the purview of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972.