TILAK RAJ Vs. SARDAR DEVENDRA SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision arises out of a suit for ejectment of the defendant from the building in dispute. The plaintiff claimed that the defendant was the tenant and the tenancy having been terminated he was liable to be ejected. In defence it was urged that the suit for ejectment was not maintainable in view of the provisions of the U. P. Urban Build­ings (Regulation of letting, rent and Eviction) Act 1972. The trial court held that the building was constructed within ten years of the enforcement of the Act and hence it was not covered by the Act. The defendant went up in revision and urged that the finding of the trial court was perverse. Some further evidence was led in the revisional court by the defendant and in rebuttal evidence was led by the plaintiff. The learned Additional District Judge also on the basis of the evidence subsequently produced before him, agreed with the finding of the trial court and dismissed the revision.

(2.) THE contention of the learned counsel for the applicant is that evidence of the defendant before the revisional court consisted of large number of documents but the same have not been considered. It is immaterial because the other evidence which relate to actual occupation of the building could not have led to a finding other than the one recorded by the learned District Judge. The evidence relied upon by the court below is the evidence regarding the assessment of the building to the property tax. A resolution of the Municipal Board dated 30th March 1967 was produced on the basis of it the court came to the conclusion that this building was subjected to assessment for the first time with effect from April 1, 1967. On that finding, the court below has held that the building is not covered by the 1972 Act.

(3.) IT is apparent from this provision that, for purposes of this Act, a building is to be deemed to be constructed, if it is subject to asse'ssment on the date with effect from which the first assessment is made. It is immaterial whether the building was constructed actually prior to that date or it had come into occupation prior to that date. The law recognised for the purposes of this Act, the date of assessment as the date of the completion of the building. There is thus no error in the judgment of the court below.