BHEESHM PAL Vs. VITH ADDL DISTRICT JUDGE MUZAFFARNAGAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The suit for eviction of the petitioners and recovery of rent was filed by the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 being Suit No. 35/93. It was alleged in the plaint that U.P. Act XIII of 1972 does not apply to the premises in dispute. The premises in dispute is a shop No. 3 of House No. 142. South Bhopa Road Gaushala, Nat Mandi, Muzaffarnagar. The suit was decreed by the trial court on 20.5.1998, by judgment. Annexure-7 to the petition. Against that order, the petitioners preferred S.C.C. No. 62/98, which have also been dismissed on 27.10.1998, vide Annexure-8 to the petition. Aggrieved by it, the petitioners have filed this petition invoking extra-ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

(2.) I have heard Sri P. K. Jain, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri J.P. Pandey, learned counsel for the respondent No. 3.

(3.) The only argument advanced in this petition is that the shop in dispute was constructed prior to 1979 and it was assessed to tax on 27.12.1978, as is apparent from the assessment. Exhibit 7 of the record of the court below. This annexure show that the order of assessment of the premises in dispute was passed on 27.12.1978 and it was assessed to tax from 1.4.1979. It is, therefore, argued that the suit having been filed after ten years after the date of first assessment in the year 1993, the U.P. Act X11I of 1972 applies in the premises in dispute. As against this. it is argued by the learned counsel for the opposite party No. 3 that this assessment is regarding the old building in which there was no shop. That assessment. Exhibit 7, show that this is regarding a wooden Taal with two KOTHAREES and one big shop. That the map for construction of the shops was got sanctioned on 29.5.1983. The sanctioned map is Exhibit 8 of the record of the court below. That, thereafter, the shops were constructed and the first assessment of the shops took place from 1.4.1986, Annexure-6 on the record of the court below. That in this assessment five shops have been shown, which was not in the previous assessment. The evidence, therefore show that there was an old building but the shops in dispute were constructed in the year 1984. The suit having filed in the year 1993 the U.P. Act XIII of 1972 does not apply to the premises in dispute.