MOHAMMAD KHURSHID Vs. RAMESH SINGH AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Having heard the rival contentions on behalf of the revisionist-tenant and respondent-landlord, I feel that the whole controversy between the parties revolves around pivot of determination regarding the applicability of U.P. Rent Control Act No.13 of 1972.

(2.) Learned Lower Court has manifested its finding in affirmative on the basis that although the shop, in question, was under the tenancy of the revisionist since long back, inasmuch as, since 1970s but in 1991, plaintiff/landlord after receiving Rs.30,000/- as the advance rent, constructed three shops at the first floor on the roof of pre-existing two shops at ground floor, in addition to, three to five more rooms on the first floor, nay the toilet, kitchen, bathroom, etc. So, the preexisting two shops on the ground floor had been reduced to the minor status vis-à-vis to the whole building, which has been modified by way of substantial additions and constructions, as envisaged under Section 2(2), Explanation (I) (c) of the U.P. Rent Control Act.

(3.) To find out the correctness of this findings the Court has not to go far but considering the cross-examination of the defendant Mohammad Khurshid, will determine the whole controversy. In his cross-examination, he has accepted this fact that in 1991, all these additions and substantial construction were got done by the plaintiff-landlord in the whole building.