Anand Kumar vs Hansraj Kakkar

By means of this revision filed on 4.10.2016, the judgment and order dated 7.9.2016 passed by the Judge, Small Causes Court/Ist Additional District Judge, Udham Singh Nagar has been assailed whereby the suit was decreed for eviction and the tenant revisionist herein has been directed to pay the arrears of rent rent @ Rs. 600/- per month with effect from December 2006 till the institution of the suit on 26.3.2007 and thereafter the mesne profit at the same rate till the demised premises is actually vacated. In addition to, 6 per cent simple annual interest shall also be payable on the arrears of rent and mesne profit (if any).

The revisionist has challenged the impugned judgment firstly on the ground that the demised premises attracts the applicability of the U.P. Rent Control Act, 1972 because even before the tenant entered in such premises, it was under the tenancy of some other person.

This argument does not have any substance for the reason that it has been found proved by the learned Trial Court that the piece of land/plot, whereon three shops have been got constructed by the landlord Hansraj Kakkar, was purchased by him on 29.5.1985 by means of a

registered sale deed from one Veer Singh. After purchase of plot, he began the construction on such plot and in 1986, the tenancy of Mr. Anand Kumar began which has been accepted by the revisionist himself. It is also proved because the first assessment of the shop, in question, in the municipality concerned was made on 1.4.1986 which was valid till 31.3.1991, i.e. for five years. After the period of first assessment was over, the name of the tenant could be recorded in the assessment of the municipality for the first time in 1991.

Therefore, it is obvious that the shop, in question, is excluded from the applicability of the Rent Control Act in view of the provisions contained under Section 2 (proviso) because the buildings, construction whereof was completed on or after 26.4.1985, are excluded from the applicability of the Act.

Learned Senior Counsel of the revisionist has argued that the benefits of Section 114 of the Transfer of Property Act should be given in such eventuality because the tenant has deposited the rent @ Rs. 600/- per month (accepted rent to the tenant) after initiation of the suit.

I think the notice under Section 106 was issued by the landlord on 3.10.2006 terminating the tenancy, the ground wherefor was not the default in payment of rent, but it was independent in nature. Although some clauses of such notice entailed the default by the tenant in making the payments, but in addition to such default it was also stated in the said notice that the landlord needs the demised premises for the use of his own family and progeny. So, he does not want to continue the tenant in such premises.

It is also pertinent to mention that after the presentation of the suit on 26.3.2007, it was protracted by the tenant and he permitted the trial to be adjudicated finally almost nearly after ten years on 7.9.2016.

All told, I find no force in this petition. It is hereby dismissed. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.

Let the LCR be sent back.