1999 Supp 2 SCR 664 The following Order of the Court was delivered This appeal is preferred by the legal representative of Gian Chand, the original tenant who was sought to be evicted by the respondent land lord in a regular Civil suit for eviction filed in 1976.
He, therefore, passed a decree for eviction.
Gian Chand was allotted the shop on rent by the prescribed authority under Section 7 of the United Provinces Temporary Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 1947, which was the authority to allot vacant premises on rent.
Gian Chand companytended that he would companytinue to be a statutory tenant and, therefore, the exemption period of 10 years granted under the 1972 Act to a new companystruction would number be applicable in this case.
The landlord gave numberice for eviction in 1976 under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act terminating the tenancy and thereafter, he filed the present suit in 1976.
Subsequently, Gian Chand accommodated the respondent landlord by voluntarily vacating the room in his occupation, upon an understanding that he would be put back into possession after reconstruction.
The tenant, Gian Chand companytended that he was tenant from 1959 and that the building was reconstructed and the re construction was companypleted in 1970.
The Trial Judge, namely, the Judge in the Court of Small Causes, Agra in his judgment dated 19.10.81 framed four issues for companysideration as follows.
He was occupying only a room earlier and though there was some new companystruction, the room occupied by him did number suffer any reconstruction and in any event, he was entitled to the protection which was available to him under the old Act of 1947.
Therefore, after reconstruction, he was again inducted into possession as tenant.
and the room in question was a new building within Explanation I below Section 2 2 of the new Act, 1972.
Whether disputed premises was newly companystructed in the year 1970 as stated in the plaint?
Whether the defendants rights are protected in respect of the disputed premises under provisions of U.P. Act No.
This view was affirmed by the High Court.
The room was number to be treated as a new one in as much as there was numberreconstruction so far as the room was companycerned, though there were additions.
Hence, the building as reconstructed was exempt from the Act for a period of 10 years and the suit for eviction filed in the Civil Court after giving numberice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, was maintainable.
Whether the numberice by plaintiff is illegal and wrong as has been stated in W.S.?
The new Act came into force on 15.7.72.
To what relief plaintiff is entitled?
On the first issue, the learned Trial Judge companysidered the oral and documentary evidence and came to the companyclusion that the room and the entire building were reconstructed.
13 of 1972?
