Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
PETITIONER:
SHRI SURENDRA KUMAR JAIN
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
SHRI SANTI SWAROOP JAIN & ORS.
DATE OF JUDGMENT24/07/1995
BENCH:
RAY, G.N. (J)
BENCH:
RAY, G.N. (J)
MAJMUDAR S.B. (J)
CITATION:
1995 SCC Supl. (3) 413 1995 SCALE (4)558
ACT:
HEADNOTE:
JUDGMENT:
THE 24TH DAY OF JULY,1995
Present:
Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.N.Ray
Hon’ble Mr.Justice S.B.Majmudar
Dr. A.M. singhvi, Sr.Adv. and Mr.Rakesh K.Sharma, Adv. with
him for the Appellant
Mr. Kapil Sibbal, Sr. Adv. Mr.K.B.Rohtagri, Ms. Aparna
Rohtagi,Mr.Praveen Jain and Mr.P.K.Jain, Advs. with him for
the Respondents.
O R D E R
The following Order of the Court was delivered:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO.6546 OF 1995
(Arising out of S.L.P. NO.4280/1995)
Shri Surendra kumar Jain
alias Sunni
Versus
Shri Shanti Swaroop Jain and others
O R D E R
Leave granted,
Respondent No.1 has already entered appearance. Notice
of the appeal need not be served on respondent Nos.2 and 3
who are formal parties and such notice on them is dispensed
with.
Heard learned counsel for the parties. It appears to us
that for the purpose of deciding the date of construction it
is necessary to refer to Explanation 1(a) of Section 2(2) of
the U.P.Urban Building (Regulation of Letting Rent and
Eviction) Act 1972. In the Explanation to the said Section
it has been indicated that the construction of a building
shall be deemed to have been completed on the date on which
completion thereof is reported to or otherwise recorded by
local authority having jurisdiction and in the case of
building subject to assessment, the date on which the first
assessment thereof comes into effect and where the said
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2
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 merely for the
purpose of supervising the construction or granting the
building under construction) for the first time.
It, therefore, appears that in terms of Explanation
1(a) the construction is 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 if such reporting or recording happens to be on
the earliest point of time vis a vis various dates referred
to hereinbefore. It is contended that in the instant case,
the Municipal Athority having given notice for assessment on
15.11.77, such date should be held to be the date when the
Municipal Authority had already taken note of the
construction of the building. Since that date is the
earliest of the dates as refferred to in the explanation
1(a), that date decomes relevant for the purpose of
considering deemed date of construction. It does not appear
that such consideration has been made by the High Court in
decising the case. The High Court has proceeded on the
footing only on the pasis of the assessment effected in
1981. The learned Counsel for the respondent has relied on a
decision of this Court in Om Prakash Gupta etc. Vs. DIG
Vijendrapal Gupta etc.etc. (1982 (2) SCC 61). But it appears
to us that in that case, there was no question of Municipal
Authority having taken note of construction on an earlier
date for the purpose of giving notice for assessment. Hence,
that decision is not applicable for the purpose of deciding
the issue raised in this case. We, therefore, set aside the
impugned decision of the High Court and remit the case back
to the High Court for disoosal on merits in the light of
above discussion preferably within a period of four months
from the date of receipt of the order of this Court. The
High Court will decide as to which is the earliest date of
deemer construction in terms of date Explanation 1(a) of
subsection 2 of Section 2 of the said Act for the purpose of
deciding the dispute involved in the case. Until the matter
is disposed of by the High Court, there will be stay of
eviction from the disputed premises.
The appeal is accordingly disposed of without any order
as to costs.