INDRAJEET Vs. SPECIAL JUDGE BHRASHTACHAR NIVARAN GORAKHPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the parties.

(2.) THIS is tenants' writ petition. Landlord respondent No. 2, Prabhat Kumar Pandey filed S.C.C. Suit No. 2 of 1993 against tenants petitioners for eviction. In the plaint, it was stated that provisions of U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent & Eviction) Act, 1972 were not applicable on the building in dispute. Tenanted building in dispute is a shop, rent of which is Rs. 12/- per month. It was also stated that shop in dispute had been sub-let to Kishori lal by the tenants petitioners. Ground of material alteration was also taken. It was also stated that rent from July, 1992 till October, 1992 had not been paid. It was also stated that at the time of filing of the suit, valuation of the shop must be around Rs. 1 lac, hence rent must be Rs. 10,000/- per year. Notice of termination of tenancy was sent on 27.11.1992. Petitioners were contin uing as tenants since before 1983. However condition of the tenanted accommo dation was not good, hence on 21.2.1983, an agreement took place between the parties under which tenants surrendered a portion of the building in their ten ancy occupation and the remaining portion was repaired by the landlords. On this ground, it was contended that new tenancy should be deemed to have come into existence when building in dispute was reconstructed after 21.2.1983. It was further pleaded by the landlord that ship in dispute must be deemed to have been newly constructed after 21.2.1983. The Trial Court did not believe that version and held that in the very first paragraph of the agreement dated 21.2.1983 (copy of which is Annexure-1 to the writ petition), it was stated that the tenants were continuing as tenants for about 40 years. Trial Court further held that the portion, which remained in tenancy occupation of the tenant af ter the agreement of 21.2.1983, was only repaired. In the agreement also word 'repair' was used. Accordingly, Trial Court held that provisions of the Act were applicable on the building in dispute. In respect of allegation of sublet ting, Trial Court held that there was no subletting and alleged sub-tenant was servant of the tenant.

(3.) LOWER Revisional Court held that fresh tenancy started w.e.f. February, 1983. Revisional Court in para 18 of its judgment held that in 1983, a new agreement was executed in between the parties, in which it was mentioned that on the new building U.P. Act No. 3 of 1972 would not be applicable. Annexure-1 to the writ petition is the copy of said agreement dated 21.2.1983. In the agreement, no such thing has been mentioned. LOWER Revisional Court also held that if rent of a building is more than Rs. 2,000/- per month, U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 will not be applicable. Firstly, said amendment (section 2 (1) (g) was incorporated during pendency of the suit. Secondly, that was not applica ble as rent was only Rs. 12/- per month and thirdly, during argument in this writ petition, learned Counsel for the landlord respondent categorically stated that he was not pressing the point of non-applicability of the Act on the ground that rent of the building is more than Rs. 2,000/- per month. However, Revisional Court held that on the first date of hearing entire rent etc. had been deposited.