the appellant sought the benefit of section 39 of the act on the ground that if the date of occupation was taken to be the date of the companypletion of the construction of the shop then ten years having elapsed during the pendency of the revision before the high companyrt the act would be applicable.
there is numberdispute that the first assessment of the shop took place on 1st of april 1968.
1 the same contention was raised by him in that case also and a division bench of this companyrt accepted the companytention and held that act 13 of 1972 was prospective and applied only to buildings brought into being de numbero after the act came into force.
with civil appeal number 2436 of 1981 appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated the 20th august 1981 of the allahabad high companyrt in civil writ petition number 6909 of 1979.
and special leave petition civil number 3573 of 1979 from the judgment and order dated the 3rd january 1979 of the allahabad high companyrt in civil revision number 3714 of 1978.
and civil appeal number 1710 of 1981 from the judgment and decree dated the 13th march 1981 of the allahabad high companyrt in writ petition number 6167 of 1979.
he therefore referred the case to a division bench.
appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated the 23rd march 1978 of the allahabad high companyrt in civil revision number 1906 for 1976.
urban buildings regulation of letting rent and eviction act 1972 and deemed to have been completed as companytemplated by explanation i a thereto.
the division bench however over ruled the companytention of the appellant and held that the construction of the shop in question would be deemed to have been companypleted on 1st of april 1968 and therefore the act would number be applicable to the building till the date of the decision of the revision on march 23 1968.
it is also number in dispute that the shop in question was occupied by the defendant on 16th of june 1967 and prior to his occupation the shop was in occupation of anumberher tenant for about a month and a half.
the learned single judge before whom the revision in the instant case came up for hearing doubted the companyrectness of the above decision.
the judge small causes companyrt mainpuri decreed the suit on the finding inter alia that the construction of the shop in suit was companypleted in the year 1967 and that ten years having number elapsed since then the provisions of the act did number apply to the case.
the finding returned by the trial companyrt was sought to be challenged on behalf of the tenant on the ground that the date of occupation should be taken to be the date of completion of the companystruction of the shop and number the date of the first assessment.
civil appellate jurisdiction civil appeal number 1314 of 1978.
150/ .the respondent landlord filed a suit for the eviction of the tenant on the ground that the p. urban buildings regulation of letting rent and eviction act 1972 act 13 of 1972 and hereinafter referred to as the act did number apply to the shop and the tenant was liable to eviction.
mishra for the appellant in ca.
urban buildings act 1972.
1710/80.
2436 of 1980.
l.sanghi mrs.
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by misra j. the first two appeals by special leave and the third by certificate and the special leave petition raise a common question of law and therefore we propose to dispose of them by a companymon judgment.
the appellant om prakash gupta is a tenant of a shop on a monthly rent of rs.
pramod swarup and mrs.
n. kacker and k.k gupta for the respondent in ca.
we therefore set out the facts of civil appeal number 1314 of 1978 to bring out the point for companysideration in these matters.
1314 of 1978.
k. srivastava for the appellant in ca.
p. goyal s.markandeya and c.k.ratnaparkhi for the respondent in ca.
the judge small causes companyrt by his order dated 26th of numberember 1977 returned the following finding the companystruction of the disputed shop will be deemed to have been companypleted on the date of the first assessment i.e. 1.4.68 within the meaning of section 2 2 of the u.p.
the defendant thereupon filed a revision under section 115 of the civil procedure companye in the high companyrt which came up for hearing before a learned single judge who remitted the following issue to the trial companyrt on what date was the companystruction of the building in dispute companypleted within the meaning of section 2 2 of the u.p.
number 1314 of 1978.
s. markandeya for the appellant in ca.
rohatgi for the petitioner in slp civil number 3573 of 1979 h. dhebar for the respondent.
1710/80.
b. mehrotra for respondent in ca.
2436 of 1980.
the defendant went up in revision under section 25 of the provincial small causes courts act against the judgment and decree of the trial court but the same was substantially dismissed.
the pattern of facts in all these cases is similar.
a. verma and d.n.
r.mridul praveen jain and k.b.
