TMI Blog1982 (3) TMI 265X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Civil Writ Petition No. 6909 of 1979. AND CIVIL APPEAL No. 1710 OF 1981 From the judgment and Decree dated the 13th March, 1981 of the Allahabad High Court in Writ Petition No. 6167 of 1979. AND SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 3573 OF 1979 From the judgment and order dated the 3rd January, 1979 of the Allahabad High Court in Civil Revision No. 3714 of 1978. G.L.Sanghi, Mrs. A. Verma and D.N. Mishra for the Appellant in CA. No. 1314 of 1978. J.P. Goyal, S.Markandeya and C.K.Ratnaparkhi for the Respondent in CA. 1314 of 1978. A.K. Srivastava for the Appellant in CA. 1710/80. R.B. Mehrotra for Respondent in CA. 1710/80. Pramod Swarup and Mrs. S. Markandeya for the appellant in CA. 2436 of 1980. S.N. Kacker and K.K Gupta fo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l Procedure Code in the High Court which came up for hearing before a learned Single Judge who remitted the following issue to the trial court: On what date was the construction of the building in dispute completed within the meaning of section 2 (2) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, and deemed to have been completed as contemplated by Explanation I (a) thereto. The Judge Small Causes Court by his order dated 26th of November 1977 returned the following finding: The construction of the disputed shop will be deemed to have been completed on the date of the first assessment i.e. 1.4.68 within the meaning of section 2 (2) of the U.P. Urban Buildings Act, 1972. The finding ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he date of occupation was taken to be the date of the completion of the construction of the shop, then ten years having elapsed during the pendency of the revision before the High Court, the Act would be applicable. The Division Bench, however, over-ruled the contention of the appellant and held that the construction of the shop in question would be deemed to have been completed on 1st of April 1968 and, therefore, the Act would not be applicable to the building till the date of the decision of the revision on March 23, 1968. The defendant undaunted by the failure came to this Court to challenge the judgment of the High Court. Mr. G.L. Sanghi, senior counsel. appearing for the appellant strongly contended that on a correct interpretation ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . Smt. Murti Devi.(1) The same contention was raised by him in that case also and a Division Bench of this Court accepted the contention and held that Act 13 of 1972 was prospective and applied only to buildings brought into being de novo after the Act came into force. In that case there is no discussion except this bald observation. This Court in a subsequent case Ram Saroop Rai v. Lilavati(2) held to the contrary. It is on this account that the present appeals were referred to a larger Bench. There is no ambiguity in the language of sub-section (2) of section 2 and in the absence of any ambiguity there is no question of taking any external aid for the interpretation of the sub-section. In plain words the sub-section contemplates that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... en completed on the date on which completion thereof is reported to or otherwise recorded by the local authorities having jurisdiction, and in case of a building subject to assessment the date on which the first assessment thereof comes into effect and where the said dates are different, the earliest of the said dates, and in the absence of any such report, record or assessment, the date on which it is actually occupied for the first time. A perusal of Explanation I makes it abundantly clear that the date of occupation would be taken to be the date of completion of the construction only when there is no report or record of the completion of the construction or no assessment, thereof. If there is an assessment, as in the present case it is, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... costs. We, however, direct that the order of eviction in each case shall not be executed before 30th of June, 1982 on condition that each of the appellants in the appeals and the petitioner in the special leave petition files an undertaking in this Court within four weeks from today to the following effect: 1. that he will hand over vacant and peaceful possession of the suit premises to the landlord-respondent on or before 30th of June, 1982; 2. that he will pay to the respondent arrears of rent, if any, within a month from today; 3. that he will pay to the respondent future compensation for use and occupation of the suit premises for each calendar month by the 10th of the succeeding month; and 4. that he ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
