This High Court upheld the Small Cause Court's decree for eviction and rent arrears but augmented it with a seven-month grace period for the tenant to vacate, dismissing the revision and ordering future rent payment at 150 per month.
Permission granted to vacate premises within seven months; pending unadjusted rent at 150 per month to be paid until vacation.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Civil Revision No. 03 of 2012
Sevak Ram S/o Shri Ram Dayal R/o Mohalla Palledaran, Sekhupura Pahari Bazaar, Kankhal, Tehsil and District Hardwar
…...... Defendant/Revisionist
Smt. Chanchal Gupta W/o Sri Lav Kumar Gupta R/o Mohalla Sekhupura, Kankhal, Tehsil and District Hardwar
.….......Plaintiff/Respondent
Shri Lok Pal Singh Advocate, with Shri Tapan Singh, and Shri Nikhil Singhal, Advocates, present for the revisionist. Shri Narendra Bali , Advocate, present for the plaintiff/respondent
Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J.
This revision, preferred under section 25 of Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887, is directed
2
against the judgment and decree dated 17.12.2011, passed by Judge, Small Cause Court/Additional District Judge/IInd Fast Track Court, Hardwar, in SCC Suit No. 03 of 2003 whereby said court has decreed the suit for eviction of the tenant (present revisionist) from the shop in question, and further decreed the suit on realization of the arrears of the rent and mesne profits at the rate of ` 150/- per month from the period 01.01.2000 to 31.03.2003.
(2) Heard learned counsel for the parties, and perused the record.
(3) Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff is owner and landlord of the shop in question situated in Kankhal, District Hardwar. It is alleged by the plaintiff that the defendant (present revisionist) was tenant on rent at the rate of ` 500 per month. Initially the shop in question was roofed by tins, but in the year 1997 a pucca shop was constructed by putting lintel over the shop, after getting the map sanctioned from Hardwar Development Authority. As such, the provisions of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 [ Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings ( Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction ) Rules, 1972,] are not applicable to the present shop in question. It is further alleged that the defendant failed to pay rent with effect from
3
01.01.2000 to 31.03.2003 amounting total ` 19,500/on which the plaintiff got served notices under section 106 of Transfer of Property Act, 1882, on the defendant and got his tenancy terminated. And the suit was filed for eviction and arrears of the rent.
(4) The defendant (present revisionist) filed a written statement before the trial court and contested the suit. He admitted that plaintiff is owner and landlord of the shop in question. He further admitted that he (defendant) was tenant in said shop but at the rate of 150/- per month. It is further pleaded by the defendant in his written statement that he runs a vegetable shop in the shop for last fifty years. He also pleaded that he had paid 1,25,000/- in the year 1997, in connection with repair of the shop and electric connection, and said amount was required to be adjusted towards the rent payable to the landlord. It is further pleaded by him that there was no default committed by him in payment of the rent to the landlord. It is also pointed out that during the pendency of suit, the defendant paid the rent regularly before the Judge, Small Cause Court.
(5) On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the trial court (Judge Small Cause Court) framed following points of determination:-
4
(iii) To what relief, if any, the plaintiff is entitled ?
(6) After recording the evidence, and hearing the parties, the trial court found that the provisions of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972, are not applicable to the building in question. It further found that the defendant has committed default in payment of rent with effect from 01.01.2000 to 31.03.2003 at the rate of ` 150/- per month. On the basis of said findings, the trial court found that the suit filed by the landlord deserves to be decreed for eviction as well as recovery of arrears of rent. Aggrieved by said judgment and decree dated 17.12.2011 passed by passed by Judge, Small Cause Court/Additional District Judge/IInd Fast Track Court, Hardwar, present revision is filed by the tenant.
(7) Shri Lokpal Singh, learned counsel for the revisionist argued that the trial court has erred in law
5
in holding that the provisions of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 [Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings ( Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction ) Rules, 1972], are not applicable to the shop in question. It is contended that the shop in question was already existing, and the defendant was already tenant in said shop, which was repaired in the year 1997, and only in place of roof of tins, lintel was laid. On the other hand, learned counsel for the landlord (respondent) submitted that the change made in the year 1997 in the house in question was a substantial change, and as such, the building in question was a new building in which by the year 2003, when the suit was instituted, the provisions of aforesaid Act, were not applicable, as the same are applicable to a building after a period of 40 years.
(8) On the perusal of the record, it is clear that the owner of the building (plaintiff) after getting map sanctioned from the Hardwar Development Authority, removed the roof of tins of the existing building and replaced it with lintel, whereafter, the first floor was also constructed in the year 1997. The question before this Court is whether such a change in building constituted substantial change to take away the building from the clutches of provisions of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972, or not. Clause (b) of explanation
6
I to sub section (2) of section 2 of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972, provides that construction includes any new construction in place of an existing building which has been wholly or substantially demolished. The change made in the building in the present case is covered by clause (c) of explanation I of sub section (2) of section 2 of the Act, which provides that where such substantial addition is made to an existing building and the existing building becomes only a minor part thereof the whole of the building including the existing building shall be deemed to be constructed on the date of completion of the said addition. In view of the above provision, this Court is of the view that the trial court (Judge Small Cause Court) has rightly held that the building after the year 1997 stood newly constructed and provisions of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972, were not applicable to the building, as after getting map sanctioned from Hardwar Development Authority not only roof was demolished and replaced but first floor was also constructed.
(9) As far as, the payment of rent by defendant is concerned, after discussing, the oral and documentary evidence on record, the trial court has held that the defendant failed to pay the rent at the rate of ` 150/- per month from the period 01.01.2000
7
to 31.03.2003, as there was no receipt of payment of rent with the tenant.
(10) For the reasons as discussed above, the trial court has rightly decreed the suit for eviction and payment of arrears of rent against the defendant. Learned counsel for the revisionist submitted that because the revisionist runs an old vegetable shop, in the premises in question, he requires sufficient time to vacate the premises. On the other hand, learned counsel for the landlord (respondent) submitted that already the trial remained pending since 2003 till 2011 before the trial court, and the landlord is still waiting to get the shop premises vacated. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice, this Court is of the view that seven months period is required to be given to the tenant to vacate the premises.
(11) Accordingly, this revision is dismissed, with the observation that the revisionist is allowed to vacate the premises in question within seven months. If the revisionist fails to deliver the vacant possession of the shop by 31st of December 2013 to the landlord, the plaintiff/respondent shall be at liberty to get the decree executed. The revisionist shall be liable to pay the rent/mesne profits at the rate of ` 150/- per
8
month, till the date shop is vacated, adjusting the payment of rent already deposited by him, in the Court. Costs easy.
(Prafulla C. Pant, J.)
Dt.13.05.2013 N.P
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the provisions of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 are applicable to a shop where the roof was replaced and a first floor was constructed in 1997.
Whether the tenant was liable for payment of unexpired rent and mesne profits after eviction.
Whether a grace period should be granted to the tenant for vacating the premises.
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Smt. Chanchal Gupta
Prafulla C. Pant
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
