Praveen Kumar Jain vs Habibulla

S.U. Khan, J.—Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as Sri Y.S. Vohra, learned Counsel, who has appeared for landlordrespondent through caveat.

Landlord filed eviction suit against tenantpetitioner in the form of S.C.C. Suit No. 13 of 2007 before J.S.C.C., Bulandshahar. In the plaint, it was stated that U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 was not applicable to the building in dispute as it was newly constructed in the year 1987 and assessed for the first time for the house tax in the year 19881989. Property in dispute is a shop, rent of which is Rs. 610/ per month. Landlord''s version was found to be correct, hence suit for eviction was decreed on 7.4.2008. Against the said judgment and decree, S.C.C. Revision No. 11 of 2008 was filed, which was dismissed by A.D.J., Court No. 3, Bulandshahr through judgment and order dated 22.7.2008, hence this writ petition.

In July, 1987, an agreement was entered into in between petitioner and defendant for letting out the shop by the respondent to the petitioner. In the said agreement, it was mentioned that shop was constructed in 1987 itself.

The main argument of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that tenant petitioner asserted and landlordrespondent admitted that prior to the petitioner, once cycle repairer was tenant of the shop in dispute. However, it is mentioned in the judgment of the Revisional Court that petitioner could not state that for how much time shop in dispute was in tenancy occupation of cycle repairer. Landlordrespondent stated that cycle repairer occupied the shop in dispute as tenant only for 24 months.

Moreover, building in dispute was assessed for house tax for the first time w.e.f. 19881989. By virtue of section 2 (2) of the Act, a building which is constructed on or after 26.4.1985 is exempted from the operation of the Act for 40 years. Accordingly, I do not find least error in the findings of the Courts below that Act was not applicable to the building in dispute.

Accordingly, writ petition is dismissed.

Tenantpetitioner is granted ten months'' time to vacate provided that:

Within one month from today tenant shall files an undertaking before the Trial Court, to the effect that on or before the expiry of aforesaid period of ten months he will willingly vacate and handover possession of the property in dispute to the landlordrespondent.

For this period of ten months, which has been granted to the tenantpetitioner to vacate, he is required to pay Rs. 15, 000/ (at the rate of Rs. 1500/ per month) as rent/damages for use and occupation. This amount shall also be deposited within one month before the Trial Court and shall immediately be paid to the landlordrespondent.

Within one month from today tenant shall deposit entire decreetal amount due till date (at the decreed/agreed rate of rent i.e., Rs. 610/ per month after adjusting any amount already deposited) before Trial Court for immediate payment to landlordrespondent.

In case of default in compliance of any of these conditions tenantpetitioner shall be evicted through process of Court after one month and shall also be liable to pay damages at the rate of Rs. 2, 500/ per month since after one month till the date of actual eviction.

Similarly, if after filing the aforesaid undertaking and depositing decreetal amount and Rs. 15, 000/ the accommodation in dispute is not vacated on the expiry of ten months then damages for use and occupation shall be payable at the rate of Rs. 2, 500/ per month since after ten months till actual eviction. It is needless to add that this direction is in addition to the right of the landlord to file contempt petition for violation of undertaking and execution application.

Writ Petition Dismissed.