FASIUDDIN Vs. XII A D J MEERUT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) LANDLORD -respondent No. 3 Mohd. Yunus filed two suits for eviction against both the petitioners who are his tenants. Both the petitioners are independent tenants of two adjoining shops. The landlord purchased the accommodation in dispute in the year 1976. According to the petitioners the accommodation in dispute was in the form of a single dokhani shop, which was converted by the landlord into two shops by erecting partition wall in between and making consequential repairs. On 22.8.1983, S.C.C. Suit No. 373 of 1983 was filed against petitioner No. 1 and S.C.C. Suit No. 374 of 1983 was filed against petitioner No. 2. In the plaints it was stated that the constructions were new hence U. P. Rent Regulation Act (U.P. Act No. 13, 1972) was not applicable to the shops in dispute. J.S.C.C., Meerut on 25.10.1986 decreed both the suits holding that the shops in dispute were new construction. Against the said judgment and decree two revisions were filed. IXth Additional District Judge, Meerut allowed the revisions and remanded the matter to decide afresh after giving opportunity to the parties to lead further evidence. After remand the matter was heard again and again. J.S.C.C., Meerut, through judgment and decree dated 25.3.1989, decreed both the suits by a common judgment as both the suits had been consolidated. Against the said judgments and decrees both the petitioners filed two revisions. Revision of petitioner No. 1 was numbered as S.C.C. Revision No. 109 of 1989 and that of petitioner No. 2 Habib Ullah as S.C.C. Revision No. 108 of 1989. XIIth Additional District Judge, Meerut, through judgment and order dated 18.7.1992, dismissed both the revisions hence this writ petition.

(2.) THE only point involved in this case is regarding date of completion of construction and applicability of U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972.

(3.) IT has been held by the Supreme Court in Ram Swaroop Rai v. Leelawati, 1980 ARC 466 and Om Prakash Gupta v. Dig. Vijendra Pal, AIR 1982 SC 1230 (2), that for deciding date of construction as provided under Explanation 1 to Section 2(2) of the Act oral evidence including admission is not much relevant in the presence of house tax assessment and that house tax assessment is conclusive evidence to decide the date of construction. Under the aforesaid Explanation even if building is constructed and occupied prior to house tax assessment still the date on which house tax for the first time assessed will be the date of construction. The said Explanation is quoted below : Explanation (1). - -(For the purposes of this section :