SETH NANHAK CHAND Vs. DISTRICT JUDGE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) LIST revised. No one is present for contesting respondent. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner. This is landlord's writ petition arising out of proceeding initiated by him against tenant/respondent for ejectment in the form of S.C.C. Suit No. 15 of 1981 on the file of J.S.C.C. Mirzapur. In the plaint it was stated that the premises in dispute had been constructed in the year 1974 -75 i.e. about 6 years before tiling of the suit hence U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 was not applicable to the building in dispute. However, in the oral statement plaintiff stated that the held that even if revision of the was constructed in April, 1972. The Trial Court held that even if revision of the landlord that building was constructed in April, 1972 was taken to be correct still during the pendency of the suit ten years expired, hence U.P. Act No. (sic) held that the tenant was not defaulter, accordingly suit was dismissed for want of any ground under section 20(2) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 by judgment and decree dated 21.7.1982. Landlord/respondent filed revision against the said judgment and decree being S.C.C. Revision No. 24 of 1982. District Judge, Mirzapur dismissed revision by order dated 23.2.1983. This writ petition is directed against the aforesaid judgment and decree passed by Revisional Court and J.S.C.C. The Revisional Court held that it was not disputed that first house tax assessment was made on 2.4.1972, hence the said date was the date of construction. Both the Courts below placed reliance upon O.P. Gupta v. D.P. Gupta,, 1982 ARC 391 (SC) and held that if ten years period expired during pendency of suit, Act became applicable and tenant was entitled to the benefit of the said Act.

(2.) HOWEVER , later on Supreme Court overruled the said view and held that if on the date of filing of the suit, the Act was not applicable then it would not become applicable during pendency of the suit even though requisite period of assessment (10 years at the relevant time) expired during pendency of the suit. In this regard reference may be made to, 1992 (1) AIR 304 S.C. Accordingly writ petition is allowed. Judgments of both the Courts below Revisional Court as well as Trial Court are set aside. Suit of the plaintiff (S.C.C. Suit No. 15/81) is decreed for ejectment. No relief for recovery of any amount till the date of suit may be granted as copy of plaint has not been filed. However, suit for recovery of Rs. 157,50/ - per month w.e.f. 1.9.1980 till the date of delivery of possession after adjustment of any amount which may have been made by respondent before the Courts below is also decreed. Any amount deposited by tenant/respondent is permitted to be with drawn by petitioner/landlord.