JAG JEET SINGH Vs. ANIL KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) S. K. Phaujdar, J. The matter was heard in presence of the learned counsel for the parties on 24-2-1997. This second ap peal was preferred by the defendant-appellant who had lost in both the Courts below. The Suit No. 1604 of 1980 was filed by one Babu Lal Gupta, predecessor-in-interest of the respondents for eviction of the defen dant-appellant from a tenanted premises. It was the case of the plaintiff that the defen dant- appellant had been a tenant in the suit property (an open land) according to English calendar month. The rent for every month was payable with the expiry of the last date of the month. The defendant failed to pay the rent and a notice of termination of tenancy claiming arrears of rent and vacant possession of the premises was served on the defendant. But the demands were not paid heed to. Rather, inspite of receipt of the notice, the defendant-appel lant started raising an unauthorised tin shed in the open land in his tenancy. The plaintiff had sent a written objection to the defen dant against such unauthorised construc tion. The plaintiff asserted that the provisions of U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 were not applicable to the present suit as the tenancy was in respect of a vacant land.

(2.) THE defendant contested the suit and filed a written statement. He raised a plea that the tenancy was not in respect a vacant land, rather it was for a building standing thereon. THE said building had a tiled roof and the plaintiff and his brother were the owners thereof. THE defendant claimed that he had taken the premises for running a dairy and it was a manufacturing and industrial purpose. It was also asserted that prior to induction of defendant as a tenant, another tenant was there in the suit premises, who was also running a dairy busi ness. THE defendant requested the land lords to repair the tiled roof but they were not ready to do so, rather they permitted the defendant to make the repairs himself. Only thereafter, the defendant removed the tiles and replaced it by a tin shed and above that a tiled roof was made. THE defendant had to incur expenses of Rs. 3,000/ -. THE construc tion made by the defendant came within the purview of "building and the suit of the plaintiff was covered by Section 29a of the U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 and was not main tainable in its present frame. It was asserted that the plaintiff had not made the co-owner as a party to the proceeding and the suit was bad for non-joinder of necessary party. THE suit, according to the defendant, should have been filed before the Small Causes Court and the ordinary Civil Court had no jurisdiction to take up the matter. THE notice was also depicted as illegal as it was not served six months ahead of the proposed date of termination, as required under Sec tion 106 of Transfer of Property Act (in short the TP Act ). THE trial Court framed several issues touching the jurisdiction, na ture of tenancy, absence of parties, ap plicability of Section 29-A of U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 and the notice under Section 106 of the T P. Act.

(3.) SRI K. L. Grover relied on certain case-laws in support of his contention. He referred to me the judgment in the case of Ram Dulare v. D. P. Jain, as recorded by the Allahabad High Court and reported in 1965 ALJ at page 722. In this case, the Court explained what was the meaning of words accommodation and building as used in U. P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Evic tion Act, 1947. It was held that even struc tures like thonpri with a thatched roof for shelter was an accommodation under this Act as a poor tenant could afford accom modation upto that standard only and he was not to be deprived of the protection of the provisions of the Act.