MAHESH LALWANI Vs. UTTAM SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision is directed against the judgment and decree dated 18th November, 1985 passed by the VIIIth Additional District Judge, Lucknow in a suit for ejectment and arrears of rent and damages filed by opposite party Sardar Uttam Singh against Sri Mahesh Lalwani in respect of House No. 127/4 -B, Chaulakhi behind Nishat Cinema, 5, Bisheshwar Nath Road, Lucknow. The above premises were let out by the plaintiff Sardar Uttam Singh to Sri Mahesh Lalwani on the monthly rent of Rs. 500/ -. The defendant fell in arrears of rent since 1st November, 1981. A notice dated 8 -1 -1983 for arrears of rent and ejectment in respect of the premises in question was served on the defendant on 11 -1 -1983. The defendant did not comply with the notice and the suit for arrears of rent and ejectment and for damages for use and occupation of the premises in question at the rate of Rs. 75/ - per day from 12 -2 -1983 was filed by the plaintiff against the defendant -revisionist. In the suit plaintiff had claimed arrears of rent for the period from 1 -11 -1981 to 11 -2 -1983 at the rate of Rs. 500/ - per month and for the damages for the use and occupation for the period from 11 -2 -1983 to 15 -5 -83 the date of the filing of the suit at the rate of Rs. 75/ - per day. The damages for use and occupation till the date of eviction were also claimed.

(2.) THIS suit was contested by the defendant -revisionist. It was asserted by him that the premises in question are governed by the provisions of U.P. Urban Buildings (Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (Act No. 13 of 1972), for short 'the Act', and, as such, the defendant is not liable to ejectment from the premises in question. It was asserted by the defendant that there were no arrears of rent outstanding against him and that he was not liable to ejectment and the plaintiff was not entitled to get damages for the use and occupation of the premises in dispute in occupation of the defendant at the rate of Rs. 75/ - per day. He asserted to have deposited sum of Rs. 1500/ - as security with the plaintiff which could not be forfeited. It was further asserted that the premises in question were not constructed from the alleged loan taken from the U.P. Avas Avam Vikas Parishad, but the premises in question were constructed in the year 1972 and not in the year 1974. The facts relating to the payment of rent as averred in the written statement are mentioned in detail in the impugned order and the same need not be repeated.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the applicant Sri P.N. Mathur urged that the Court below has erred in holding that the provisions of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972, do not apply to the present premises as the same was got constructed by the plaintiff out of the funds obtained by way of loan from the Uttar Pradesh Avas Avam Vikas Parishad. Learned counsel for the applicant further urged that there was no conclusive evidence to the effect that the building in question was constructed by the plaintiff substantially out of the funds obtained as loan from the said Parishad. The Court below thus erred in holding that the provisions of the said Act do not apply to the premises in question.