MUNNI LAL JINDAL Vs. LAXMI NARAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a Defendant's civil revision under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act against the decree passed by the IVth Addl. District Judge, Agra, sitting as Judge, Small Cause Court, whereby a suit for ejectment from a premises situate at Shivaji Marg, Firozabad, district Agra, and for arrears of rent and mesne profits etc. filed by the opposite party was decreed.

(2.) THE case of the opposite party was that he was the owner of an Ahata, that on 5th April, 1967, an agreement was executed by the applicant whereby the opposite party was required to make certain constructions in the said Ahata and on the completion of the constructions the applicant was to take them on rent. The case of the opposite party further was that in pursuance of that agreement the required constructions were made by him and were let out to the applicant on 6th October, 1967, for a period of five years on a rent of Rs. 300/ - per month. Since after the expiry of the term of five years and even after a notice being served on him the applicant did not vacate the premises nor did he clear off the arrears of rent and the taxes which under the agreement were payable by him the necessity to file the suit arose. The suit was contested by the applicant inter alia on the ground that the provisions of U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) were applicable to the premises in question and that he was not under any liability to pay the taxes. His defence, however, did not find favour with the court below. The Additional District Judge recorded a finding that the premises in dispute had been constructed after 5th of April, 1967, and since the suit had been instituted on 27th May, 1974, i.e., within ten years of the construction of the premises in dispute, the Act was not applicable to it. The suit was accordingly decreed as pointed out above.

(3.) HAVING heard counsel for the parties I am of opinion that even though it is true that the finding of the court below does not strictly conform with the requirements of the Explanation to Section 2(2) of the Act yet no useful purpose will be served either in remanding the case or remitting an issue inasmuch as on a perusal of the evidence on record produced by the parties I am satisfied that the Act is not yet applicable to the premises in dispute.