AMEERUDDIN Vs. VIIITH ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) S. U. Khan, J. At the time of hearing no one appeared for the respon dents, hence only the arguments of learned Counsel for the petitioner were heard.

(2.) THIS is tenant's writ petition. Landlord-respondent No. 3 Sri Jamal Uddin instituted S. C. . C. Suit No. 154 of 1989 against tenant-petitioner for evic tion from the tenanted accommodation and for recovery of arrears of rent. It was stated in the plaint that property in dispute had been constructed in the year 1983, hence U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 was not applicable thereupon. By virtue of section 2 (2) of the Act, the Act does not apply to buildings for a period of 10 years in case building was con structed prior to April, 1985. It was further stated that rate of rent was Rs. 80/-per month. Petitioner-tenant filed written statement asserting that rate of rent was Rs. 15/- per month and house in dispute had been constructed more than 10 years before filing of the suit hence the Act was applicable. Copy of relevant page of assessment register Nagar Palika, Meerut was filed before the Trial Court. In the said copy it was mentioned that it was for the period from April, 1976 to March, 1998. In the said copy it was also mentioned that according to the order of sub-committed dated 3. 2. 1992 the tax was payable w. e. f. 1. 4. 1981. On the basis of the said document building would be deemed to have been con structed on 1. 4. 1981 by virtue of Explanation I to section 2 (2 ). According to the said explanation normally the date on which first assessment of building comes into effect is to be taken as date of construction.

(3.) THERE is one more aspect of the matter which requires consideration. On 10. 7. 2007. Hon. Rakesh Tiwari, J. , passed an order in this writ petition direct ing petitioner to pay Rs. 1, 000/- per month towards rent to the landlord and fur ther directed that after four months an affidavit of compliance shall be filed. No such affidavit has been filed meaning thereby that the enhanced rent has not been paid. Non-payment of rent is itself a ground for dismissal of the writ petition vide Carona Ltd. v. M/s. Parvathy Sivamiwthan and Sons, AIR 2008 SC 187 (Para 45) and R. K. Shukla v. Sudhrist Narain Anand 2008 (72) ALR 612 (SC), Civil Appeal No. 7238 of 2005 (decided on 12. 5. 2008)