SAMUNDRI DEVI Vs. NAND KISHORE MARWAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE are revisions under section 25 of the Provincial Small Causes Court Act. The applicant in Civil Revision No. 83 of 1986 is the plaintiff-landlord. The applicants in the other two revisions are tenants. THESE revisions were heard together as the principal question involved in each of them is the same. And, the question is whether the date of completion of construction of a building is to be determined in accordance with the 'deeming provision' contained in Explanation I to section 2 (2) of the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (for brief, the Act) even where the plaintiff himself discloses a date of such construction which is different from the one contemplated by the Explanation. In Civil Revision No. 83 of 1986, an additional question was canvassed before me. The question is whether tenancy of distinct tenaments can be terminated by a common notice under section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act and a single suit in respect of such tenaments with distinct tenancies could be instituted. But, first the facts. In Civil Revision No. 83 of 1986 Smt. Samundri Devi, the plaintiff, made an admission through her counsel before the Income Tax authorities that the completion of construction of the premises in dispute in the suit was on August 31, 1975. The statement of the plaintiff's husband, as her attorney, under Order 10 Rule 2 CPC before the trial court that the accommodation in question was given on rent to M/s. Bahal and Duggal Company on June 25, 1976. The accommodation was, however, assessed for the first time to House Tax and Water Tax by the Nagar Palika, Ghaziabad with effect from October 1, 1976.

(2.) IN Civil Revision No. 390 of 1986 the assertion in paragraph 3 of the plaint is that the construction of the house was completed in the beginning of December, 1974. IN paragraph 4 of the plaint, it was added that the provisions of U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 were not applicable to the accommodation. The building was, however, first assessed to tax by the Nagar Palika with effect from October 1, 1976.

(3.) THE learned Judge negatived the submission made on behalf of the tenant that there could not be different dates of completion of construction in respect of different parts of a building designed or occupied as separate unit and, on the basis of the admission of the tenant himself that the accommodation in dispute had been occupied by him for the first time after its completion in the year 1968, he said further that the finding of the two courts below based on pleadings and evidence could not be deemed to be illegal. THEreafter, he observed, though it was not really necessary, that " ...............Moreover, if the date of construction is, according to the rules of pleadings, to be deemed as impliedly admitted, under Order VIII, Rule 5 CPC read with section 58, Evidence Act then the question of ascertainment of various dates mentioned in the said clause (a) of the Explanation does not arise. I thus find no good ground, in exercise of the writ jurisdiction, to disturb the concurrent finding of fact of the two courts on this point. "