HAR PRASAD Vs. KAMLA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition filed by the petitioner-tenant under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenges the order passed by the trial court dated 6.12.2004 and the order passed by the revisional court dated 24.3.2005.

(2.) The facts leading to filing of the present writ petition are as under :

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the aforesaid provision of Explanation 1 (a) t o Section 2 and submitted that in view of the fact that there is material on record that the shop in question was first assessed to tax by the local body concerned, namely Nagar Maha Palika in January, 1985 pre-supposes that the construction was pre-January, 1985 or in any case as enshrined in the aforesaid Explanation 1 (a) to Section 2 of the Act the date when the building was first reported or recorded by the local body concerned that being January, 1985 on the date when the suit was filed the shop in dispute has already completed more than ten years of construction therefore, on that date the building was covered by the provisions of U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 and view to the contrary taken by the trial court suffers from manifest error of law. This argument is completely in ignorance of the fact that the trial court as well as the revisional court has discussed the evidence on record that after January, 1985 and before the premises was let out to the petitioner the four shops in the building were demolished and reconstructed and reshaped into three shops. This reconstruction of the shop in dispute, as the shop in dispute is one of the three shops, was done in sometime 1988 after getting the map duly sanctioned by the local body concerned. That the petitioner was inducted as tenant in the year, 1991, the suit was filed in the year, 2000, therefore, the view taken by the trial court and affirmed by the revisional court that the provisions of U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 are not applicable to the shop in dispute in my opinion, does not suffer from any error, as suggested by learned Counsel for the petitioner.