BHOOPAL SINGH Vs. VII ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE SAHARANPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -Heard learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) THE petitioner is a tenant and Om Prakash, respondent no. 3, is the landlord. Om Prakash filed a suit in the court of Judge Small Causes, Saharanpur for the eviction of the petitioner on the ground that the accommodation in question is a new one and the provisions of U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972 were not applicable. THE trial court decreed the suit. THEreafter a revision was filed, under section 25 of the Provincial Small Causes Courts Act. This revision has also been rejected by the impugned order dated 25-2-1988; hence this writ petition challenging both the impugned judgments,

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the respondent has contended that on assessment of the materials on record, municipal record, rent notes and oral testimony, the courts below came to the conclusion that the provisions of section 2 (2) Explanation-1 shall be applicable to this building and, therefore, the U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972 is not applicable. LEARNED counsel for the respondent further pointed out that the property was purchased by means of a sale deed dated 21-7-1978 and in this sale deed there was no mention of any shop. The disputed accommodation is a shop. He has also pointed out that the courts below have relied upon the Municipal assessment for the years 1967-1975 and this property under the sale deed was assessed at an annual value of Rs. 261/- and there was no shop mentioned. LEARNED counsel, therefore, pointed out that for the first time in the assessment for the year 1975-80, four shops and house were shown and, therefore, the courts below were justified in holding that the shop in question for the first time was assessed in the assessment year 1975-80.