'RAM SW AROOP RA! v. \

LILAVATHI May 7, 1980

.-------,

[V. l, l. KRISHNA IYER AND R. S. PATHAK, JJ.]

U.P. Rent Control Act (Act 13 of 1972), Section 2(2)-Exemption from application of the provisions of the Act for the period of ten years in respect of uew con.tructions-Burden of Proof is upon the; landlord and not upnn the tenant.

The respondent landlady purchased sliop No. 66 in the city of Jhansi in 1969 from one Brij Mohan (DW 2), occupied the first floor and allowed the appellant/tenant to occupy the ground floor in 1970 on a leaBe deed which recited that the building was erected in 1965.

In 1975, the respondent filed the ejection suit on the basis that the bwlding 005 new, that the Act did not deter eviction of new constructions put up within ten years of the suit and so a decree v:as inevitable. The appellanttenant resisted the claim on the plea that the building was constructed 50. years earlier. The Trial Court negatived the defence and decreed eviction and this was upheld by the High Court.

Hence the appeal by special leave to this Court.

A1lowing the appeal and remanding the m&tte~ to the Trial Court, the Court

HELD : 1. In the normal course, no doubt the appeal must be dismissed as concluded by findings of fact.

To avoid posible public mischief through a new .class of litigation for eviction by easy resort to the "new construction," expedient, interference under Article 136 of the Constitution is necessary.

[1037 A-BJ

2. Section 2(2) of the U.P. Act, uses the phrase "nb{_hing in the rent control legislation shall apply to a building" during a period of ten year, s from the date on which its construction is completed. In other v,; ords, in regard to all buildings the Act applies save where this exemption operates. '11terefo:re the landlord who .seeks exemption must prove thai excep'tion. The burden is on him to mr.ke out that notwithstanding the rent control legislation, his building F is out of its ambit. lt is not for the tenant to prove that the building has been coDstructed beyond a period of ten years, but it is for the landlady to make out that the construction has been completed within ten years of the suit.

This is sen$ible not merely because the statute expressly sfates so and thd setting

unncessarily implies so, but also because it is the landlady who knows.. best when the building was completed, and not the tenant. As between the two, the owner of the building must tell the court when the building was Construct- G ed, and not the tenant thereof. Speaking generally, it is faif that the onus of establishing the date of construction of the building is squarely laid on the landlord although in a small categotjr of cases where the landlord is a 'purchaser

from another, he will have to depend on his assignor to prove the fact

[1038 C-F]

3. An analysis of Explanation 1 to s. 2(2) of the U.P. Act indicates:

H (I) Where a building has not been assessed, it is the date on which the completion was reported to, or otherwise recorded by the local authority having jurisdiction. [1038 G-H]

• ' •

; >

RAM SWAROOP V. LILAVATHI 1035

Provided that if the date on which the completion was reported, to, or otherwise reCQrded by, the local authority is earlier Ulan the date of the first assessment, the date of completion will be such ear .. lier. date.

[1039' A-BJ

(3) Where there is no report, record or assessment, it is the date Of B actual oCcupation for the first time (not being an occupation for the purpose of supervising the construction or guarding the build ing under construction). [1039 B-CJ

Unfortunately, it is not possible for the purchaser-respondent or the teilant-apptllant to give direct testimony about the time of the construction or C the nature of the construction vis-a-vis Explanation (b) or ( c) . The best testimony is the municipal records about the completion of the building and the verificationby the municipal authorities as to whether a new construction '1as come into being or an old construction has been remodelled and, if so, when . exactly the completion took effect. It is quite conceivable that the municipal records bearing on the completion of the construction

1 may throw conclusive light, whatever might have been the original proposal D in the phm submitted. It is perfectly possible that on a view of the earlier construction, vis a vis the completed new building the former may form but a small part. It may also be that the implication of the expression "increased assessmenf' may be explained with reference to earlier assessment records ln the municipality.

Moreover, whenever a new building is completed, a report has statutorily to be made and only on a completion survey and certificate~ occupation is ordinarily permitted. These records must also be ;µ:"ailable in E ihe office of the local '3.Uthority.

The statutei makes it clear that reliance upon the 'muQicipal records rat, her than on the lips of witne~, is indicated to deter

mine the date of completion and the nature of the construction. This statutory guideline has been wholly overlooked and the burden lying on the landlord has not been appreciated. The result is that the eviction order has to be demolished.

[1039 F-0, 1040 D-GJ In the instant case (i) the Municipal assessment record produced in the F Court merely states "increased assessment". It may suggest the existence

of_ an assessment which has been increased or it may perhaps be argued that when the bµilding was nconstructed a new assessment was made which was more than the. previous assessment and, therefore, was described as increased assessment; (ii) the oral evidence is inconsequential being second hand testi mony. Even the recital in the rent deed that there was a new construction in 196S-66 is by the appellant and the respondent, neither of whom has any direct G knoWiedge about the construction.

Of course, an admission by the appellant is evidence against him but an admission is not always conclusive especially in the ilght of the municipal records such as are available and tho burden such as has been laid by the statute; and (iii) the failure of the trial Court specifically to record wlie11 the building was completed and what was the extent of re .. building, whether it was a case of total demolition arid reconstruction or such extensive additions as to push the existing building into a minor J>illjl •. beco; nes . Jl fatal. These basic issues have failed , to receive any attention. from the courts

below. A finding recorded on speculative basis is no finding and that is tlie fate of the holding. (1039 G-H, 1040 A-D]

'"J . 1

OH,'

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 2109 of 1979.

Appeal by Special Leave :from the Judgment and Order dated 7-5-1979 otl the Allahabad High Court in Civil Revision No. 900 of 1978.

A. K. Sen, B. S. Banerjee and R. N. Goviml for thei Appellant.

J, P. Goyal and S. K. Jain for Respondent.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

KrusHNA IYER, J.-A brief back-drop leads to the short point in issue. Chronic scarcity of accommodation in almost every part of the country has made 'eviction' litigation explosively considerable, and the C strict protection against ejectment, save upon restricted grounds, has become the policy of the State. Rent Control Legislation to give effect to this policy exists everywhere, and we are concern~ with one such in the State of U.P. (U.P. Act 13 of 1972). The legislature found that rent control law had a chilling effect on new building construction, and so, to encourage more building operations, amended the stature D to release, from the shackles of legislative restriction, 'new COIJ!ltructions' for a period of ten years. So much so, a landlord who had let out his new building could recover possession without impedllnent if he instituted such proceeding within ten years of completion.

The

\ E

respondent is a landlady who claims to fill .the bill in this setting and seeks to vict the appellant-tenant untramelled by the provisions of the Act.

She has succeeded in both the courts below and the appellant challenges the order as illegal and vitiated by a basic error of approach.

We should have made short work of it had there not been the need for this Court to set the sights right in the class of litigation where exemption from the opef:!tion of the Act is claimed on the ground that the construction is new and the case is filed within the ten-year moratorium. If the exemption is erroneously lib\lralised to frustrate the principal measure by failure to stick to basic legal principles, the jurisprudence of rent control may become too jejune to 'be socially effectiye. That is why we examine a few fundamentals here in the decisional process of this class of cases.

The area of controversy, factual and legal, is small. The respondent purchased shop No. 66 in the city of Jhansi in 1969 from one Brij Mohan (DW2), occupied the first floor and allowed the appellant, as tenant, to occupy the ground floor in 1970 on a lea8e deed which recited that the building was erected in 1965. In 1975 the present eviction action was instituted on the basis that the_ building was new, that the Act did not debar eviction of new constructions , put up within ten years of the suit and so a decree was inevitable.

' t

"'1

* i

~ ,, Q

<:->-'

RAM SWAROOP v. LlLAVATHI (Krishna Iyer,/.) 1037

The tenant resisted the claim on the plea that the building was constructed 50 years ago: The trial court negatived the defence and decreed eviction and this was upheld by the High Court. ·

If ir were a bare finding of fact we should not have reopened it, but Shri A. K. Sen argues that fundamental flaws in the understanding of the law have vitiate<I the decision which, if left uncorrected, will spell a new class. of litigation for eviction by easy resort to the 'new construction expedient. Such possible public mischief persuades us to have a closer look at •the Act to the extent . relevllnt.

Shri J. P. 6oel rightly reminds us that in the normal course tlie appeal must be dismissed as concluded by findings of fact.

But we will probe the matter further to explore whether there is any substance in Shri A. K. Sen's argument of fundamental failure bearing on the legality of the conclusions. The anatomy of the Act is substantially the same as that of other. similar legislations. The most important feature , we, have to notice is the exemption from application of the provisions of the Act for the period of ten years in respect of new constructions.

Section 2(2) is relevant in this context and runs as follows:

Excepti'as provided in sub-section (5) of section 12 subsection (lA) of section 21, sub-section (2) of section 24, sections 24A, 24B, 24C or sub-section (3) of section 29,

nothing in this Act shall apply to a building during a period E of ten years from the date on which its construction is completed. .

xxx xxx xxx

Explanation 1.-For the purposes of this sub-section,

(a) The construction of a buildingi shall be deemed to have been completed on the date on which' the completion thereof is reported to or otherwise recorded by the local authority having jurisdiction, and in the case of a building subject! to assessment, the date on which the first asse8sment thereof comes into effect, and where the said dates are different, the earliest of the said' dates, and in the absence of any Such .report, record or assessment, the date on which it is actually occupied (not including occupation merely for the purposes of supervising the construction or guarding the building under construction) for the first time :

Provided that there may be different dates of completion H of _construct.ion in rspect of difierent parts of a building which are either designed as separate units or are occupied

A separately by the landlord and one or more tenants or by diffrent tenants.

(b) 'construction' includes any new constructions in place of an existing building which has been wholly or substantially demolished;

B ( c) Where such substantial addition is made to an existc

ing building, that the existing building be.comes only a minor part thereof, the whole of the building including the existi'llg building shall be deemed to be constructed on the date of completion of the said addition. ·

This sub-section and its construction is decisive of the Jate of the appeal. Notrung in the rent control legislation shall apply to a building "during a period of ten years from the date on which its construction is completed." The first thing that falls to be emphasised is that in regard to all buildings lhe Act applies save where this exemption operates.

Therefore, the landlord who seeks exemption must prove that exception. Tlie burden is on him to make out th.at notwithstanding the rent control legislation, his building is out of its ambit. It is not for the tenant to prove that the building bas been constructed beyond a period of ten years. But it.is for the landlady to make out that the construction has been completed within ten years of the suit.

This is sensible not merely because the statute expressly state<s so and the setting necessarily implies so, but also because it is the landlady who knows best when the building was completed, and not the tenant. As between the two, the owner of the building must tell the' c.ourt when the building was constructed, and not the tenant thereof.

Speaking generally, i~ is fair that the onus of establishing the date of construction of the building is squarely laid on the landlord, although in a small category of cases where the landlord is a purchaser rrom another, he will have to depend on his assignor to prove the fact.

Firstly, therefore, we must examine whether the respondent has made out her case for exemption from the operation of the Act based on the vital fact that the buildi'llg has been completed only within ten years of the suit. The second thing we have to remember is Explanation 1 quoted above. When is a building deemed to have been completed? An analysis of Explanation 1 to s.2(2) of the U. P. Act indicates :

(1) Where a building has not been assessed, it is the date . on which the completion was reported to, or other wise recorded by, the local authority having jurisdiction.

I f

RAM SWAROOP 1'. LII; AVATIIT (Krishna Iyer, J.)' 1039

Provided that if the &te on which the completion was reported to, or otherwise recorded by, the local authority i5 earlier than the date of the first assessment, the date of completion will be such earlier date.

(3) Where there is no report, reord or assessment, it is the date of actual occupation for the first time (not being an occupation fdr the purpose of supervising the construction or guarding the building under construction). '

It is common case that Shop Nos. 65 and 66 were owned by a common owner, Shri B{ij Mohan,

DW2.

He sold only Shop No. 66 to the respondent. So, there is no doubt, that there was an existing building, Shop No. 66, long prior to the ten-year period rt1entioned in the statute. According to the testimony of Shri Brii Mohan, DW2, the old construction continued, but certain additions and remodelling. were done. He had submitted a plan to the local authority indicating the original construction and the proposed additions, and that is marked as Exhibit in the case.

This shows the existence of a prior building, the proposal being for addition or partial reconstruction and not for total demolition. If we go by the plan, it is not possible to conclude automatically that there is a new construction. If we go by Brij Mohan's evidence, the owner of the building at the relevant time, we cannot necessarily hold that the existing building has been substantially demolished and reconstructed.

Indeed, his evidence i5 1 to the effect that the construction such as was made was beyond the 10 yea.r period.

Unfortunately, it is not possible for the purchaser-respondent or the tenant-appellant to give direct testimony about Vie time of the construction or the nature of the construction vz's-a-vis Explanation

(b) or (c). The best testimony i~ the municipal records about the completion of the building and the verification by the municipal auihorities as to whether a new construction has come into being or an old construction has been remodelled and, if so, when exactly the completion took effect.

The municipal assessment record produced iq the court merely state "increasd assessment". It may suggest the existence of an assessment which has been increased or it may perhaps be argued that when the building was 'reconstructed a new assessment was made which was more than the previous assessment and, therefore.

. ~

was described as increased assessment.

The oral evidence in the case, apart from what we have set out, is inconsequential, being second hand testimony. Even the recital in the rent deed that there was a new construction is 1965-66 is by the appellant and the respondent, ndther of whoJll has any direct knowledge about the construction.

Of course, an admission by the appellant is evidence against him but an admission is not always conclusi'1e especially in the light of the municipal records such as are available and the burden such as has been laid by the statute.

Viewed in this perspective, the failure of the trial court specifical\y to record when the building was completed and what Wl!S "the C the extent of re-building, whether it was a case of tofal demolition and reconstruction or such extensive additions as to push the exiSfuig "\ building into a minor part, becomes fatal.

TheseJ basic issues have

failed to receive any attention from the courts below.

A finding recorded on speculative basis is no finding and that is the fate of the holding in the present case.

We do not want to dwell OR the evidence in greater detail because we propose to remit the case to the trial court (Court of the First Additional District Judge, Jhansi). It is quite conceivable tbat the municipal records beilring on the completion of the construction nfay throw conclusive light, whatever might have been the orginiil propOSfil in the plan submitted. It is perfectly possible that on a view of the earlier construction, vis a vis the completed new building, the! fom; ier may form but a small part It may also be that the implication ofi the expression "increased assessment" may be explained with reference to earlier assessment records in the municipality.

Moreover, whenever a new building is completed, a report has statuforily to be made and only on a completion rurvey and certificate,, occupation is ordinarily permitted. These records must also be available in the office of the local authority.

The statute milkes it clear that reliance upon tlie municipal records, rather than on the lips of witnesses, is indicated to determine the date of completion and the nature of the conStruction.

This statutory guideline has been wholly overlooked anil the burden lying on the landlord has not been appreciated. The , result is that the viction order has to be demolished.

It may still be opn to the landlady-reSpondent to make out bis case by producing better municipal evidence in the light of whlit we have indicated.

We do not wish to deny the landlady this opporlhnity because the trial court has not approached the problem from the correct legal angle.

We set aside the judgment of the courts below and remit t11e case for hearing to the trial court. The trial coµrt

RAM SWAROOP v. LILAVATHI (Krishna Iyer, J.) 1041 • will give an opportunity to both sides to adduce fresh evidence, docu- A mentary and orill, to make out the ground of exemption from the application f the Act.

Of course, when the entire evidence is before the court, the onus -of proof will play a lesser role.

Before parting with the case, we wish to notice a submission made by Shri Goel that the landlady's son was an unemployed engineer B who needed the premises for personal requirement. Even if the ct applies, it is open to the landlady to make out any of 11\l grounds under the Act for eviction. To avoid prolixity and delay of ihe proceedings, we permit the trial court to allow the landlady, if she applies in that behalf, to plead on an alternative basis, for eviction on any of the specified grounds under the Act. c

The appeal is allowed and the ca_se remitted to the Court of the Addi. District Judge, Jnsi for fresh ditiposal in the light of the observations made above.

11.R.

Appeal allowed.

_,,_,

RAM SW AROOP RA

LILAVATHI

May 7, 1980

l. KRISHNA IYER

R. S. PATHAK, JJ.

Rent Control Act

Section 2(2)

Brij Mohan

Article 136

Section 2(2)

s. 2(2)

A. K. Sen

B. S. Banerjee

R. N. Goviml

P. Goyal

S. K. Jain

KrusHNA IYER

Jhansi

Brij Mohan

A. K. Sen

J. P. 6oel

Section 2(2)

section 12

section 21

section 24

sections 24A, 24B, 24C

section 29

Krishna Iyer

B{ij Mohan

Brii Mohan

Goel

Court of the Addi. District Judge, Jnsi