~· ,

VINEET KUMAR

, ' V, , . ~

MANGAL SAIN WADHERE • January, s, !984 •

[A, P. SEN AND.R, B. MISRA: JJ.j

Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings ·(Regulation of 1,, etting, Rent aud. Eviction.) , Act, l 972 Section 2---:-lnterpretation of-fVhethel the pretnises which was not ten

years did' on the date of the suit and wus exen1pted fro111 the operadon of t!te new

Rent Act can he goierned by it, if ten yeilrs e.\pircd during the pe11de11c_v of the litiga- lion so a.s: to._ attract the be1iefit of S.39'fo the tentiut-Caue of action ", w1bsequen1 e1•C111s"

and "a111end11rent" explained

 Section 2 of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings '(Regulation of Letting, Rent and EViction) Act, 1972 exempts fro1n operation of the ;\ct various .kinds of buil

dings 'specified in sub section (1).

Sub section (2) of SectiOn 2 co:rite1nplritcs .that the new Re.n( Act \viii. nOt apply to a building during a prfod of ten years, fron1 thC ct'ate On \Vhich its cOnsLruction is completed.

Explanation I to ub Glause (2) e1uunerates the dates on which the.building shall be dcen1ed to.have been completed , viz., (1) the date of which the con1pletion thereof is reported to or othenvisc re

c"ord, ed by .the local authority having jurisdiction; (ii) in the case of building subject to assessment that date on which the first assessment thereof comes into. effect.

(iii) Where the said dates are different, the earlie.st of the said .dates and (iv) in the -absence of any report recorcl. or asscss1nent, the date on which it: is actually occuPied for the first time: •

:rhe respondent lftndlord filed a. sUit for eviction afid for arrears of rent and da1nages for use and" occupation p"e'ndent iite and future on the allegation that the appellant was inducted as a tenant of the premises i.1i sult on a monthly rent of . Rs. 250 on 7th .February 1972, ihat the building in suit was con.structed 'in 1971 under the Cooperative Housing Scheme of the State Bank of India for whih ihe bank-adVanced loan. that the building was assessed to house,. and \.vatcT tax on 1st of October 1971 and as such the bU:ilding was not covered by the u.P. Urban .

Buiidings (Regulatiori of Letting, Rent arid Eviction) Act, 1972 and that the appellri.nt . defau'lted in the payn1ent of rent despite notice dated 24th March 1977.

The appellant' resisted the si.iit and coritended. that the new Act applied as the buildin_g in question \Vas constructed in 1968, that he' had cleared rent upto 6th Apiil 77 and th<!-t as a n1.atter of fact a sun1 of Rs. •ODO spent by hi1n towards repairs etc was due fron1 the Respondent landlord. ,

The Third Additional District Judge negatived' the defence and decreed the suit for cfiction as also for recovery of arre<lrs of 1:ent and damags for use and , occupation. The Trial court found that not .only both the conditions stated in

'.Section, 2(2) but also the 1 S years' exe1nption applied to the instanJ case.

Th~ High Court in revision acCepted the finding of the trial judge that the

building in quesJion will be deen1ed to .have been co1npleted on 1st 0ctober 1971, the date of assessment of house tax and water tax and caiculating frOn1 that date the building .\vas not. ten years old on the date Of the suit an<l there'forc, the RC'1 rCnt- Act' had no' application to the building. in suit and the appellant cannot get any proteciori of the Rent Control Act.

The .High Court confirmed the fi_ndihgs of .the'trial court on aU-other point~ except the fihding -about the amOunts 'of rent .and the allowe_d the aI,>peal in part'.'t.

Allowing the appeal partialfy~ the Court • • ' HELD: 1 ~1. The_provision ofthe Uttar Pradesh Urban Building{R.egllla~ tion of Letting, Rent and EViction) Act_ 1972 will be attractd, .if the building coni- f>letes "ten years during the couse Or litigation. [340 0-Hl .

1 :2. 'In the instant" case, tli:e bui.ldirtg will be deemed to.have beeRcompleted on the date of assessment which "".as.1st OCto.ber, 1971. Reckoning frm this dit.te oLcompletion, the new Rent A.ct woul.d become applicable. Admittedly the bui1dng was not ten yeitrs old on the date of sUit. But during the pendeiicy of t.he litigation it co1npleted. ten years by 23rd February l 982 wheri-the Additibnal pistrict Jll; dge decide.d the case; entitling the appellant tO claim the benefit of Section .39 of the Act. [340 B'DJ .

' I ·~ . ' ....

D 0111 Prakash Gupta v. Dii Vijendra1; al Gupta, [1982] '2 S.C.C. 61; ditinguished ·

G.··

ff'.

and held in applicable- .

1 :3. In the present cae, the benefit' of the .ne~ Ret Act sh0u1d be given to the app~Jlii.nt who only .seeks the protettion .of the new Rent Act which became :(l; pplicable to the preiniscs in question during the .pendency of thC litigation~ ~

• [340 C-D) .

Section 20 of the New Rent Act .provides a bar to a suit for eVictiOn of a.-tenant eXcept on the specified _grounds as: provided in the section. Subsection (4) of s.20 stipuJateS that in any_ suit fof viCtion On the grourids mentioned in Cl.(a) tO subs.(2), viz. the arrears of ren't, if at the first hearing of th'e suit the tenant in default Pays all arrears of rnt tothe landlord or .deposits in court the erttire arhount of rent an~ damages for us~ and occupation of.the building due from him, such dam.agCs . for use and occupation being calculated at the san1e rate as renr.together with interest thereon at the rate of nine per cent per annum: and the .Jandloi'd's.cost of the suit . ..,.- . '

....

.. in respect thereof after deducting therefrom any amount ii.lready deposited bY the tenant under , sub-s. (l) of s.30, the court n1ay, in lieu Of passing a decr~'for eviction on that ground, pass on order relieving thetenarit agairist his liability for evictfon oll that 8:round. Sections 39 and 40 of thii: nev.' Rent Act.also indicate that the benefit Or the new Act' will be given to the tencint if the conditions contemplated in those sections are satisfied. Section 39 also indicates that the paities' are entitled to make necessary amendment in their pleadings and to adduce additional evid.c1tce .

w1'ere necessary. [342 D-0] ..

. ' 2:1. Normally the Court has to decide the case on the basis of cause of ac.t-io_n that accrued prior. to the date .of filing the suit and not on a rie\v causC of ac)-iop.

But it can a:nd in many case~ must, take into acebunt events and developh1clits

ubscquent to the institution of the proceeding provided the rles of fairness to both . sides are scropidouslr obeyed". [341 A; ~] · .· 11\· . '' " -, ........ ·. c .; •• .. ! ·~

~·.,

~·,' ~·

.. ..._

'..· I • -.,

VINEET KUMAk i'. MANGAL SAIN (Misra, J.) 335

Pasupati Ve~1kateswarlu. v. MOtor qnd General Traile; j~ [t97SJ 1 S.C.C. 110; applied. ·

' ' ' 2 :2. Normally amendn1ent_ is not allowed, i( it changes the cause df aCtion.

But it is well recognised that where the amendment does not constitute an addtion ' of a new cause of action, or raise a new case,. bt .amounts' to no tporc than adding to the. facts already on. record, the amendment would be' allowed even iiftet the ·

stutory period .. -'of iimitation. [341 GJ . . , ··

A.K. Gupta & Sons v Da1nodar vai!ey. Co1pora~1'on, '[1966] 1.S.C.R. 796;; referred 'to.

C1v1t APPELLATE. JURISJJICTION: Civil Appeal No .. 10144 of 1983.

Appeal by Special leave froin the Judgment and Order dated the 20th July, 1983 of the Allahabad High Court in Civil Revision No. 237 of 1983. ·

• G.L. Sanghi, K.K. Jain, A.b. Sanger and' Pramod Dayal for the Appellant..·

'.!.D. Jain, Mrs.' Kawaljit Kochar and S.J{. Yadav for the Resp0ndent. ..

The Judgment of the Court was delivered b.Y

., ' MISl\A, J. The present appeal by special ·!eave.is.directed against the jugnient of the High' C'ourt of Aliaha'!iad dated 20th July, 1983 disposing of a revisin under s.25 of the Small Causes Curt Act arising out of suit for eviction of the appellant from the premises in suit. ' - · ·

The respondent filed a suit for viction and for arrears of rent and damages for use and occupation pendente lite and future.on.the allegation that the appellant was inducted as a tenant of the premises in suit on a monthly rent of Rs. 250 on. 7fh Fbruary, 1972, that the building .in suit was constructed in 1971 under the co-operative housing scheme of the State Bank of India for whkh the Bank advanced . Joan. T.he building in suit was assessed to house'artd water tax 'on !st October, !,971 and as such the buildin, g was ilot covered. by the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the New Rent Act for short), :and that the defendant defaulted in the payment of rent despite notice . dated 24th March, 1977. The Respondent therefore terminated the. ·

tenancy of the appellant.

The clai111 was resisted by the appellant on the ground that the building in question was constructed in J968 and that it wa.s covered by the new Rent Act. His•flirther stand was th.at rent. had been cleared upto 6th April, 1977 and thre was no default in ihe payment of rent.

He also challenged the service and the validity of the notice . termiilati11g his tenancy. Tlie appellani also claimed; he adjustment

of Rs. 1000 spent by him towards the repairs of the premises. By a later amend.men! it was further pladed that the plaint having not been amended so as to bring the uit under the provisions of1he new Rent Act the suit was barrnd by s.20 of the Act.

The. Third Additional District Judge negatived the defence and decreed the suit for eviction as also foT recovery of arrears of rent and damages for use and oceur.ation. Ti1e learned Judie held that thebuilding was exempt from the o-peration of the nrw Re.nt Act on two grounds. The first ground was based upon sub-s.(2) of s.2 which provides th, it nothing in this Act shall apply to. a building durii1g the period. of ten. years. from the date on which its construction is completed. The second ground. wJs based upon the proviso to sub-s.

(2) .of s.2,' which contemplates that where a huildii1g has been constructed substantially out of funds by way of loan or advance from the. State Government, or. Life Insurance Corporation of India or a bank or a co-operative society,· and the period or repayment' of such loan or advance.exceeds the aforesaid period of ten years, then reference in this sub-section to a period of ten years shall be deemed to be a reference to a period of fifteen years or the period ending .with the date of actual repayment of . each loan or advance,. including° interest, whichever is shorter. As the last instalment of the loan was paid in Ma.rch 1981. instead of ten years the building should be fifteen years old to attract the provisions bf the new Rent Act. He also held th'!t the appeUant !md failed to prove that he spent Rs. 1000 towards repairs of the premises. The learned Judge overruled the other pleas of the appellant and decreed .the suit as prayed for.

The appellant feeling aggrieved preferred a revision in the Hig

0 h Court. It was contended for the appellant that th.e building in question had been constructed by a co-operative society and the landlord had purchased it from the society and, therefore, the view taken by the learned Judge that the building was constructed substantial!y out of funds obtained rr; m. the sources mentioned in the proviso to s.2(2) of. the new Rent Act was manifestly erro11eous. The High Court, however, did not express any concluded opinion . and rest contended . by observing that it was not 1iecessary to examine the suqmission

...

~-··

VJNEET KUMAR v. MAN(lALSAJN (Misra. J.)' 337

in any detail or to express any cllncluded opinion abo.ut it for disposal of the present revision. The High Court, however, accepting the finding or' the learned Additional Distric\ Judge that. the. building in question wiU be dec; ncd to have been completed on I st October, 1971, the date of assessment of house tax and water tax held that the building was not ten years old on. the date.of the suit and. therefore, the new Rent Act had n.o applica\ion to the building iii suit and the appellant cannot get any protection of tlle new Rent Act.

The High Co.urt confirmed the findings of the trial Court on all other points except the finding about the arrears of rent. In the 9pinion of the High Court admittedly a sum of Rs. 1000had been paid by the appellant to the landlord through a crossed cheque dated !6th August, 1976 which was received by the landlord on .15th September, 1976.. 13ut when the plaintiff was in the witness box payment by cheque was not specifically plit lo him and it has noc been esta~

blished as to for which period the payment by cheque was made.

The counter-foil of the cheque book also didnot specify the period for which this payment by cheque was made. The High Court, however, did not endorse the fir1ding of the Additional District Judge that the payment through the cheque may have been made by the appellant towards rent for some period. prior to April 7; 1976 and held it to be manifestly erroneous and •without any . basis.

In the result High Court allowed the 'appeal in part and set aside.the decree of the trial court relating to the recovery of Rs. '3158-30 as arrears of rent for the period between.AJ?ril 7, 1976 and April 25, 1977 and remanded the case to _the trial court for redetern1ination of the amount of rent in arrears payable by the appellant after affording opportunity to 'the plaintiff to explain the .payment of the amount of Rs. 1000- .through cl1eque dated A.ugust 16, 1976. The-trial court was further directed to afford opporiuuity to the parties to adduce further evidence in regard to this aspect. ·

. E.

The appellant has now approached this Court with an pplication G for special leave to appeal.

On the date of summary hearing of the applicati6i1 under Art .. 136 of the Constitution.we granted special leave and with the consent of the coup.sel for t\te parties ., ye finally :heard the appeal to obviate . further delay. • H

'. . .

338 SUPREME couR.t REPORTS

. [1984] 2 S.C.R.

'• . The only point argued before this Court is. whether the. premises which was not ten years' old on the date of the suit and was exempted from the oper.ation of the new .Rent AC!, ca'n be governed by it if ten years. expired during the pendency of the litigation. In order -to appreciate the cote'htion of the parties it will be relevent at this stage_ to refer to s. 2 of the new rent Act.

It pertinently reads : • ,

"2. Exemption fr'Om opertion of Act.-(1) nothing in this.

Act shall apply to--

(a) . . . . ; .. ' ....

(b) . . . . . . . .....

(c) .. . . . . . . . . . .

(d) ............

(e) . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

(f) ·any building built and held by' a society registered under the Societies registration Ac( 1860 (Act No. LVIIT of

1860) or by a co-operative society, company orfi.rm and intended solely for its own occupation or for the occupation of any of its officers or servants, whether on rent ot free. of rent, or as a guest house, by whatever. name

cad, for the occupation of persons having dealings with it in the ordinary course of business.· ·

(2) Except as provided in sub-sectin (5) of Section. 12, sub-section.(IA-) of section 21; sub'section (2) of Section 24, Sections 2.4-A, 24-B, :>4-C or su_b-section (3) of Section 29,

n<; ithing in this Act .shall apply to a building during a period of ten years froin the date .on which its construction is completed : ·

Provided that where any· building is constructed substantially out of funds obtained by way of 10an or advance froin the Stae Government or the Life Insurance Corporation oflndia or a bank or a co-operative society or the Uttar Pradesh Avas Evam Vika:s Parishad, and 'the , period of repayment of such _loan or advance exceeds the aforesaid period .. of ten years then the referenc; e in this sub-section to the period often years shan be deemed to be a reference to the period of fifteen years or the -period ending with the date of

actuarepayment of each loan or advance(including interest),. whichever. is shorter. ·

...

...

VINEET .. KUMAR v . . MANGAL SAIN (Misra, J.) . 339

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

(a) the construction of a building shall be deemec! 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 ofa buiJ-· . ding subject to assessment; the date on which th.e first

assessrnent thereof .comes into effect and where the said dates are different, the earliest f the said dates, and in the ab's.ence 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 c constructtion) for th~ first time :

Provided that there may be different dates of completio.n of construction .. in respec.t of different parts of a building which are .either designed as separate units or are occupied

~ . . ·. separately by the landlord and one or more tenants or by. different tenants ;

Explanation IL- .................................... .

Explanation Jil.-A building shall be qeemeci to be con. structed substantiaJly out of funds obta.ined from sources mentioned in the p1:oviso, if the funds obtain.ed from one or more of such .sources account for more than one-half of the cost of construction."

~ Section 2 of tlie Act provides various kinds of buildings. to which the new Rent Act has no application. Sub-sectio'n (2) of s.2 contemplates tha.fthe new Rent Act.will not apply to a building during. a period of ten years from the date oti. which its construciion is com- . pleted. Explanation I to sub-s. (2) enumerate~ the dates o~ which the building shall be deemed to have been completed :-

(i) The date on which the completion thereof. is reported to or otherwise recorded by' the local authority having G

(ii)

. jurisdiction. . .

In case of °building subject to assessment, that date on which. the first assessment there~.f eornes into effect.

(iii) Where ihe said date~ are different, the earliest of the said. .

H . dates.

.. •

. 340

(iv)

SUPRfiME COURT REPORTS

[I 984] 2 S.C.R.

Tn the absence of any such report, record or asse.ssment the date on which it is actually occupied for the first .. time:

Tn the case in hand thebuilding was subject to assessment therefore it will be deemed.to have been completed on the.date of assessment

which was lst October, 1971.· The Additional District Judge has found that the building will be deemed'to have been completed. on the date of assessment of the house \vhich ha....- been accepted by the High Court. ' •

The moment a building becomes ten years old .. to be reckoned from the date of completion. the. new Rent Act wot1ld become applicable. Admittedly the building was not. ten years old on the date of suit. But during th2. pendenc:y of the litigation it complet'd ten years .. Then the question arises whether the new Rent Act will be attracted i_f the building completes ten years during the course of litigation. The Additional District Judge decided tlic case .on 23rd February 1982: By that time the building in question had completed ten years.

. The trial court. however, relying on a recent decision of this Court -in Om Prakash Gupta. v .. Dig Vijandrapa!. Gupta"' refused to apply the new Rent Act to ihe building in question.

Tn that case a contention was raised that the building will be deemed to have been constructed on the date of occupation on 16th June, 1967 and not on the date . of the first assessment and if that be so, the appellant would be entitled to the bei1efit of s.39 of the Act on the. date when the revision came

to b~ decided by the High Cofot on 23rd March, 1978. This cot1rt, 1 however, held that it is the date of the first assessme11t which will be deemed to be the date of completion of the c6nstruction in the circumstances of the case and in that view of the matter tile buildirtg had not becom' more than ten years old on the date when the revision '1 came to be decided by the. High Court and, therefore, there was no question of giving the benefit of s.3? of the Act to the appellant .It

was not al'.all necessary in .that case. to deal -WtJy the question \Vhe1her _the appellant would be entitled to the benefit of s.39 as the building

had not beco1ne ten years old on .'the date when the reviSion petition was heard.

Jn the insta1lt case, however, the bniJding had become more thah _ten yea)"s old durii1g the pendency of the l_igitation_ and, t!1erefo_re, th~ questio1~ assumes importance 111 the present case,

. (I) [1982t 2 S.C.C. 61.

VINEET KUMAR v. MANGAL SAIN (Misra, J.) 341 ' .

It may be argued that the Court had to decide the case on the A basis of cause of actwn that accrued prior to the date .of filing .the suit and not on a new. cause of action, bui this question need nc5t detain us as it is coveted by decision of this Cour! in Pasupati

Venkates1ar/11 v. Motor and General T'rades01 Dealing with a similar question this Court observed :

 "It is basic to our processual jurisprudence that the right to relief .must be judged to exist as on the date a suitor ins titutes the legal proceeding. Equally clear is the principle that procedure is th,. ha.ndmaid and not the mistress of the judicial process. ff .a fact, arising after the /is has come to

eourt and has a fundamental impact on the right to relief or the manner of moulding it, if brought diligently to the J10tice of the tribunal, it cannot blink at it or be blind to events which stultify or render 'inept the decretal remedy. Equity justifies bending the rules of procedure, where no specific provision or fairplay is not violated, with aview to pomote substirntial justice'-; subject, of course to the absence of.other disentitling . factors or just Circun1stances. Nor can 1.ve. conteniplate any 'limitation .ori this power to take note of updated facts to confine it to the friaI Court.. Tf the litigation pends, the power exists, absent . other special cirCu1nstances epeliing r1JSort to that course in law or ju_stice. Rulings on this point are 1egiC?n, even as situations for applications of this equitable ·

rule are myriad. We affirm the' propositi.on that for maki1rnthc, right or remedy claimed ".by the party just and meaningful as also legally and. factually in accord with the current realities. the Court can, and in many cases must. take cautious cong"' n.i.sancc of events and developments subseq,, uent to the institu-. tion of the proceeding provided the rles of fairness to both

sids are scrupulously o.beyd. "·

Normally amendment is not allo;,.ed if it changes the cause o( action. But it is well reco.gnised that where th.e aine~1dment .does not COllStitute an addition of a llC\V cause of action, or raise a new , case; but amounts to no more than adding to the facts already on the record the amendment, would be allowed even after the statutory period of lin1itation.

Th~ questiqn in the present case is .whether by seeking the benefit of s,39 or the new Aci there . is a Change in the cause of action. 111 A.K. Gupta & Sons. v." Da111odar

0). [1975] l s.c.c. 770.

E •

Valley C; rporiion 10 this Court dealing with the observed as foilows : catis.e of action

"The expression "cause of action" il) the present context does llOt mean" every fae\ which it is material to be proved to entitle the plaintiff to .succeed". as was said in Cooks v .

. Gi/l12 ' in a differentcontext,. for if it were so. no material fact could evei: be amended or added and, of course, no one would want to. cha.nge or add an immaterial allegation by amendment. That 'expression for the. present purpose only means, a new clai, m made on a new liasi~ co.nslituteci by new . facts. Such a .view was taken in Rabinson v. Unicos Property Corporation LtJ.<3l and it seems to us to be the only possible view t~ take. Any oth~.r view would make. the rule futile."

The appellant' in th~ present case only seeks the protedion of the new Rent .Act whith becanie applicable to the premises in question during .the pendency of the litigation:· We. see no reason why the benefit of the new Rent Act be not given to the a ppelJant. Section 20 . of the new 'Rent Act provides a bar to a suit for .eviction of'a tenant except on the specified grounds as provided in. the sect.ion. Sub section (4) of s.20 stipulates that in a; ny suit for eviction on the grounds .. mep'tioned in cl, (a) to subS. {2),•.viz. the arrears of n; nt, if af the first hearing of the suit the tenant in default pays all arrears of rent .to the landlord or deposits. in court the entire. an1ount of rent and damages for use and occupation oft.he building due from him, such domages for use and occupation being calculated at th.e same rate as rent together with interst' thereon at the rate of nine per cent per 'tnnum and the land.lord's. cost of the suit in rcspeet thereof after . deducting there froin any amount al<eady deposited by the tenant under subs .. (I) of s.30, the court' may, in lieu of passing a decree for eviction on that ground, pass ail order relieving the tenant against his Fab'iity for eviction on. that' ground .. Sections 39 and 40.of the new rent Act. also indicate that the.-bcnefit of the new Act will be given to. the. tenant' if the conditions contemplated in. those sections are satisfied. Section 39 also indicates that 'the parties are entitled to make necessary arriendment in thei:r pleadings and to adduce addi~ . tional evidence where necessary.' . ' . .

For the reasons given above the appeal must' succeed, It is accordingly allowed in par\ and_ the judgment and 'decree of the High ..

(1) [1966] I S.C.R. 796. ,

(2) [1873] LR B C.P. 107, 117

(3) [1962] 2. All. E.R. 24.

VINEBt KUMAR v. MANGAL SAIN (Misra, J.) 343

Court is set aside in so far as it relates io eviction but ihe judgment A of the High Court setting aside the decree for arrears of rent and remanding the case to the trial court remains intact, and the case is sent back to th.e III Additional District Judge who will apply the new Rent Act and give the protection of the new Act to .the appellant and wi11 give him an opportunity to deposit the dues contemplated by s.39 of the new rent Act after firsi determining whether any amoµnt

• B is due from the appellant towards rent as directed by the High Court. The costs here will abide the result.

S. R.

Appeal alfowed in part.