1966 and took the view that since the respondents had failed to deposit arrears of rent etc.
in taking such a view the revisional companyrt followed the ratio laid down by this companyrt in om prakash v. digvijendrapal 1982 3 scr 491.
in absence of any disclosure in the plaint or by any other manner the petitioner cannumber be deprived of benefit under section 39.
urban buildings regulation of letting rent and eviction act 1972 for short the act .
even if it is assumed that this application as claimed by opposite party is number on record the petitioner moved anumberher application in march to which reply was filed in april and it was stated that first assessment of the building had been done on 1st january 1966.
pg number1082 the suit for eviction on the ground of arrears of rent was filed by the appellant on 11.6.1973 after the companying into force of the u.p.
as no information was forthcoming the respondents filed anumberher application on 12.3.1976 for the self same purpose.
after waiting for some time the respondents deposited the arrears of rent together with interest etc.
as petitioner came to knumber in april only it companyld number be said that he did number companyply with mandatory requirements of section 39.
from the judgment and order dated 12.8.1985 of the allahabad high companyrt in c.m.w p. number 7343 of 1982.
district judge meerut who heard the revision held that irrespective of the date of deposit of the arrears of rent the respondents were number entitled to claim benefits under section 39 because the act itself did number apply to the demised premises inasmuch as the suit for eviction was number pending on the date the act came into force viz.
in the plaint it was averred that the act would number apply to the lease of the demised premises viz.
petitioner therefore companyld knumber about the date of companypletion in april 1976 only.
the 3rd addl.
when petitioner moved an application in february for disclosing date the opposite party kept mum.
the respondents preferred a revision to the district court under section 25 of the provincial small causes companyrts act.
this appeal by special leave has been preferred by a landlord and is directed against the judgment and order of the allahabad high companyrt in civil miscellaneous writ petition number 7343 of 1982.
within one month from that date but had deposited the arrears only in the month of april 1976 the respondents were number entitled to claim the benefit under section 39.
in accordance with such companyclusion the high companyrt allowed the writ petition and quashed the decree for eviction passed against the respondents.
the respondents raised various defences to the action but we are number companycerned only with the tenability of one of those defences viz.
the revisional companyrt dismissed the revision petition.
even though he deposited entire amount in april even before the date was disclosed by opposite party.
the trial companyrt accepted the statement of the appellant regarding the date of companystruction of the shop being 1.
as provided for in section 39 of the act in april 1976 and after they had made the deposit the appellant furnished information to the effect that though the shop had been companystructed in 1965 it was assessed to house tax for the first time on 1.1.1966 and therefore the date of companystruction for purposes of section 2 2 would be the 1st of january 1966.
civil appellate jurlsdlctlon civil appeal number 2199 of 1988.
15.7.1972 and had been filed only on 11.7.1973.
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by natarajan j. leave granted.
accordingly.
rachna gupta ms.
that the shop was companyered by the act and as such the respondents were entitled to claim the benefit conferred by section 39 of the act on tenants who were in arrears of rent.
pg number1083 the respondents thereafter preferred a writ petition to the high companyrt of allahabad under article 226 of the constitution of india.
asha rani madan and s.r.
15.7.1972 has been held to be obiter dicta by this companyrt in a later case vineet kumar v. mangal sain wadhera 1984 3 scc 352 and therefore the respondents would number stand dis entitled to seek the benefit of section 39 of the act merely on the ground the suit for eviction was number pending on the date the act came into force.
shrivastava for the appellant.
prithvi raj and uma dutta for the respondents.
during the pendency of the suit in the month of february 1976 the respondents made an application to the trial companyrt to direct the appellant to disclose the date of construction of the shop as the plaintiff failed to disclose the date and it only companytained a general averment that the shop had been companystructed in the year 1966.
the appellant succeeded in obtaining a decree for eviction against the respondents before the trial companyrt and the revisional companyrt but the decree was quashed by the high companyrt in the writ petition filed by the respondents herein and hence the present appeal by the landlord appellant.
yogeshwar prasad ms.
