RAMESHWAR DAYAL AGARWAL Vs. PAWAN KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The decree holder has filed this petition for quashing the order dated 11th December, 1997 by which the objections filed by the judgment-debtors on 9th July, 1976 in Execution Case No.232 of 1976 seeking the benefit of section 29-A of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Control) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the '1972 Act') were allowed and it was ordered that if the enhanced annual rent and the costs were deposited by the judgment debtors, the decree for eviction shall stand discharged. The said Execution Case was filed on 22nd May, 1976 by the plaintiff of Original Suit No.915 of 1964 for execution of the decree dated 12th May, 1975 for eviction of the defendants from the plot of land and recovery of arrears of rent. The petitioner has also sought the quashing of the judgment and order dated 25th August, 2004 by which the Revision filed by the petitioner for setting aside the aforesaid order dated 11th December, 1997 was dismissed.

(2.) The question that arises for consideration in this petition is whether the benefit of section 29-A of the 1972 Act, which was inserted with effect from 5th July, 1976 by U.P. Act No.28 of 1976, was available to the judgment debtors. In effect, what needs to be decided in this petition is whether the tenant, with the consent of the landlord, had erected any permanent structure on the land and incurred expenses in execution thereof because in that event, as provided for in section 29-A of the 1972 Act, no decree for eviction of the tenant from any land to which the section applies could be passed or executed except on one or more grounds mentioned in section 20(2) of the 1972 Act, provided the tenant, within a period of three months from the commencement of the section, by an application to the Court, unconditionally offers to pay to the landlord, the enhanced rent of the land for the entire period in suit and onwards at the rate of 10% per annum of the prevailing market value of the land together with costs of the suit.

(3.) Original Suit No.915 of 1964 was filed by the plaintiff for eviction of the defendants from the plot of land and for recovery of arrears of rent with the allegation that the United Provinces (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the '1947 Act') was not applicable to the plot of land and though the tenancy of the defendants stood terminated on 24th February, 1964 on the expiry of the period mentioned in the notice, the defendants did not deliver vacant possession. The Suit was partly decreed on 18th January, 1966 for recovery of a sum of Rs.429.20 only and the relief for eviction of the defendants was denied on the ground that the 1947 Act was applicable since what was leased to the defendants was "accommodation" as defined under section 2(a) of the 1947 Act and the contention of the plaintiff that only plot of land had been leased was not accepted. The landlord preferred Civil Appeal No.103 of 1966 which was allowed on 13th April, 1970 holding that plot of land had been leased and, therefore, the 1947 Act did not apply. Accordingly, the decree of the Trial Court was modified as a result of which the suit of the plaintiff for eviction of the defendants was decreed and the defendants were given one month's time to vacate and remove their machinery and constructions from the land. The defendants preferred Second Appeal No.960 of 1970 in the High Court which was dismissed on 12th May, 1975 and Special Leave Petition No.2030 of 1975 filed by them was also dismissed by the Supreme Court.