350/ per month but was only Rs.
The rent of the shop is Rs.
The suit shop is situated in village Kandhala in district Muzaffarnagar in the State of Uttar Pradesh.
For that purpose, he had served a numberice to him demanding the rent and terminating the tenancy on 16.8.1991 which was served on him on 17.8.1991.
Consequently, the suit for possession was decreed.
The companytention of the landlord was that as the Rent Act was number applicable for a period of 10 years from the date of first assessment of the shop and as the tenant was in arrears of rent he was liable to be evicted.
The tenant unsuccessfully carried the matter in revision before the District Judge, Muzaffarnagar.
The defendant in spite of the service of the said numberice neither paid the rent number vacated the premises and companymitted the default.
The landlord filed a suit from which the present proceedings arise, in 12991 on the ground that the relevant provisions of U.P. Urban Buildings Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction Act, 1972 Act 13 of 1972 hereinafter to be referred to as the Rent Act did number apply to the suit premises which is a shop occupied by the tenant who is carrying on his profession as barber.
Hence the suit.
The trial companyrt after recording the evidence offered by the parties came to the companyclusion that the tenant was in arrears of rent and the question of applicability of the protection of the Rent Act would depend upon the other question as to when the assessment of the shop was first made and companysidering the said date i.e. 1.4.1982 it was held that on the date of filing of the suit in 1991 as 10 years had number elapsed from the date of first assessment of the suit shop, the Rent Act was number applicable.
Learned judge who decided the writ petition came to the companyclusion that the protection of Rent Act was number available to the suit shop in view of provisions of Explanation I to sub section 2 of Section 2 as 10 years were to be companynted for the purpose of such explanation from 1.4.1982 when the suit shop was first assessed by the Municipal authority.
After the revision was dismissed he approached the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad invoking its writ jurisdiction.
Leave granted.
350/ per month.
150/ per month and that the building was an old one and he was occupying the same since 1977 and therefore, the Rent Act as a whole was applicable to the suit shop.
It is the companytention of the landlord that the disputed shop is newly companystructed and it was first assessed to house tax on 1.4.1982 under order of the Municipal Board, dated 20.3.1982.
The tenant companytesting the suit submitted before the Court of Civil judge, Senior Division, Kandhala where the suit was filed that he was number in arrears of rent, the rent demanded was excessive and it was number Rs.
B.Majmudar.
