# Ram Babu Jain v. Virendra Kumar Gupta and others

- **Citation:** (2001) 2 ILRA 138
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2001
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/ram-babu-jain-v-virendra-kumar-gupta-and-others-39833
- **Pages:** 4

## Text

2All] Ram Babu Jain V. Virendra Kumar Gupta and others

138
minority. The majority of the policemen
are not behaving properly at all. The
Director General of Police must look into
this and pass appropriate orders to check
these kinds of criminal activities of
policemen. We are living in a civilised
society where the rule of law prevails and
it is high time that the police also start
behaving in a civilized manner.

4. Since the allegation in the FIR
make out a prima facie case we cannot
interfere.
The
petition is dismissed.
However,
the
observations
in
this
judgement will not influence the Court
hearing the petitioner's bail application or
trial.

5. Let the Registrar General of this
Court send a copy of this judgement to the
Director General of Police, U.P. who will
issue stern directions to all police
personnel that strong action will be taken
against those policemen committing such
crimes.

5(9,6,21$/ -85,6',&7,21
5(9,6,21$/ -85,6',&7,21
&,9,/ 6,'(
&,9,/ 6,'(
'$7(' $//$+$%$'
'$7(' $//$+$%$'
%()25(
%()25(
7+( +21·%/( %. 5$7+, -
7+( +21·%/( %. 5$7+, -

&LYLO 5HYLVLRQ 1R RI

5DP %DEX -DLQ
«'HIHQGDQW5HYLVLRQLVW
9HUVXV
9LUHQGUD .XPDU *XSWD DQG RWKHUV
«3ODLQWLII5HVSRQGHQWV

&RXQVHO IRU WKH 5HYLVLRQLVW
6KUL 0DQRM 0LVUD
&RXQVHO IRU WKH 5HVSRQGHQWV
6KUL $. *XSWD

$ 83 8UEDQ %XLOGLQJV 5HJXODWLRQ RI
OHWWLQJ 5HQW DQG (YLFWLRQ $FW
6HFWLRQ

([SODQDWLRQ

D
±
$SSOLFDELOLW\
+HOG ± 3DUD

$V DJDLQVW WKLV WKH ILUVW DVVHVVPHQW RI
WKH EXLOGLQJ LQ TXHVWLRQ ZDV ILOHG E\ WKH
UHVSRQGHQWV ZKLFK VKRZV WKDW WKH VKRS
ZDV ILUVW DVVHVVHG WR WKH WD[ RQ
7KHUHIRUH DFFRUGLQJ WR WKH ([SODQDWLRQ
PHQWLRQHG DERYH IRU WKH SXUSRVHV RI WKLV
$FW
WKH
GDWH
RI
FRPSOHWLRQ
RI
WKH
FRQVWUXFWLRQV VKDOO EH GHHPHG WR EH

7KH
VXLW
KDYLQJ
EHHQ
ILOHG
ZLWKLQ WHQ \HDUV LH RQ 83 $FW
1R RI GRHV QRW DSSO\ WR WKH
SUHPLVHV LQ VXLW 7KHUHIRUH WKH FRXUW
EHORZ KDV ULJKWO\ KHOG WKDW 83 $FW 1R

RI

GRHV
QRW
DSSO\
WR
WKH
SUHPLVHV LQ VXLW 7KHUH LV QR UHDVRQ WR
LQWHUIHUH LQ WKH ILQGLQJ
% 1RWLFH ± RI WHUPLQDWLRQ RI 7HQDQF\ ±
9DOLGLW\
+HOG ± 3DUD
,W KDV QRW EHHQ SOHDGHG LQ WKH :6 WKDW
WKH QRWLFH RI WHUPLQDWLRQ RI WHQDQF\ LV
QRW RI WKH HQWLUH SUHPLVHV ,W LV DOVR QRW
VSHFLILFDOO\ SOHDGHG LQ WKH :6 DV WR
ZKLFK SRUWLRQ RI WKH SUHPLVHV WKH QRWLFH
GRHV QRW UHODWH RU LW UHODWHV WR VRPH
SRUWLRQ
QRW
LQ
WKH
WHQDQF\
RI
WKH
UHYLVLRQLVW 7KH QRWLFH FDQQRW EH KHOG WR
EH LQYDOLG RQ WKLV JURXQG

By the Court

1. This is a revision under Section
25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts
Act, 1887 against the judgment and
decree dated 25.1.2001 passed by the
J.S.C.C./ IV Additional District Judge,
Aligarh in S.C.C. Suit No. 38 of 1991.

2. The premises in dispute is shop
no. 1786-B situated within the limits of
INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2001

139
Nagar Palika Hathras. The respondents
filed the suit for eviction against the
revisionist mainly on the ground that the
shop was imposed tax for the first time on
1.10.81. That the suit was filed on 30.5.91
and therefore, U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972
does not apply to the premises in suit.
That the tenancy has been terminated by
the notice.

3. The revisionist contested the suit
alleging that the shop in dispute is an old
construction. Previously Jwala Prasad was
the tenant of the shop and thereafter the
revisionist is a tenant. That the notice is
invalid.

4. The trial-court framed necessary
issues and recorded the findings in favour
of the respondents on all issues and
decreed the suit. Aggrieved by it, the
present revision has been preferred.

5. I have heard Sri Manoj Misra,
learned counsel for the revisionist and Sri
A.K. Gupta, learned counsel for the
respondents.

6. The first contention in this
revision is that the premises in dispute is
an old construction and U.P. Act 13 of
1972 applies to the same. The learned
counsel for the revisionist in support of
the
argument
has
referred
to
the
assessment of the Municipal Board
Annexure - 5 to the affidavit in which in
columns nos. 13 and 14 it is mentioned
that the assessment has been done form 1st
April, 1981. It is contended that this
document shows that the shop was first
assessed on 01.10.81 and therefore, the
suit being filed after ten years on
01.10.81, U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 applies
to the premises. It is further contended
that the applicant moved an application
before the trial court for summoning the
records concerning the construction and
assessment of the building in question.
The copy of that application is annexure -
9 to the affidavit. It is mentioned in this
application that the building in question
was assessed to house-tax much before
01.10.81 and its construction was reported
and recorded in the Municipal record
much before 01.10.81. That it is necessary
to summon those records. His application
was wrongly rejected by the trial court.

7.

Learned
counsel
for
the
revisionist in support of his argument
regarding the date of construction has
referred to Section 2 of U.P. Act No. 13
of 1972 which provides that the Act shall
not apply to a building during the period
of ten years from the date on which its
construction
is
completed.
The
Explanation 1 (a) is regarding the date of
completion of the construction, which
reads as follows:

"Explanation -1 for the purposes of this
section:

(a) the construction of a building 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 building subject to assessment,
the date on which the first assessment
thereof comes into effect, and where the
said dates are different, the earliest of the
said date, 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
purpose of supervising the construction or
guarding the building under construction)
for the first time."
2All] Ram Babu Jain V. Virendra Kumar Gupta and others

140
8. It is contended that Annexure - 5
shows that the completion of construction
was recorded from 1st April, 1981 and
therefore, the building is covered by U.P.
Act No. 13 of 1972. It is also contended
that this document was not considered by
the court below, and has also erred in
rejecting the application of the revisionist
to summon the records of the Municipal
Board.

9. I have considered the arguments
of the learned counsel for the revisionist.
It appears that in columns nos. 13 and 14
of the assessment Annexure-5 effective
from 1st April, 1981 has been mentioned.
However, these columns are regarding
electric connection and the tax. They are
not regarding the date of completion of
construction or report of completion of
construction. The application Annexure-9
for summoning the record is a vague
application. It has not been mentioned as
to what papers exist in the record of the
Municipal
Board
and
whether
the
revisionist has seen that papers. A vague
application was moved to summon the
entire records regarding the building in
dispute. It was also not supported by the
affidavit that the copy of the said
document
cannot
be issued to the
applicant. Therefore, that application was
rightly rejected and there was no question
for summoning the entire records of the
Municipal Board of the building in
question. The suit was filed in the year
1992 and the application was moved after
a long delay on 25.2.99 with the purpose
of delaying the disposal of the case. The
revisionist could have filed the certified
copy. The application was, therefore,
rightly rejected.

10. As against this, the first
assessment of the building in question
was filed by the respondents, which
shows that the shop was first assessed to
the tax on 01.10.81. Therefore, according
to the Explanation mentioned above for
the purposes of this Act, the date of
completion of the constructions shall be
deemed to be 01.10.81. The suit having
been filed within ten years i.e. on 30.5.91,
U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 does not apply to
the premises in suit. Therefore, the court
below has rightly held that U.P. Act No.
13 of 1972 does not apply to the premises
in suit. There is no reason to interfere in
the finding.

11. Now coming to the second
question, it has been argued that the
notice is invalid firstly for the reason that
the tenancy was not terminated by the
said notice. Copy of the notice, dated
5.1.91 has been filed, which is Annexure4 to the affidavit. In this notice it is
clearly mentioned that the respondents are
in need of the premises and that they do
not want to keep the revisionist as tenant
any
more.
The
tenancy
has
been
terminated on the expiry of thirty days.
The revisionist was asked to deliver the
possession of the shop in dispute after
expiry of thirty days, which shows that
the revisionist was permitted to occupy
the premises for thirty days and therefore,
the notice were not invalid.

12. The last contention of the
learned
counsel
for
the
revisionist
regarding the validity of the notice is that
in para 4 the plaint it is pleaded by the
respondents
that
the
revisionist
surrendered a portion measuring 2'6"
wide land towards south and remained
tenant of the remaining portion. It is
contended that the notice of termination
of tenancy is of the entire premises and
therefore, it is invalid. This argument of
INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2001

141
the learned counsel can not be accepted. It
has not been pleaded in the W.S. that the
notice of termination of tenancy is not of
the entire premises. It is also not
specifically pleaded in the W.S. as to
which portion of the premises the notice
does not relate or it relates to some
portion not in the tenancy of the
revisionist. The notice cannot be held to
be invalid on this ground.

13. After considering the entire
arguments, I do not find any ground to
interfere in the judgment and decree of
the court below. The revision is fit to be
dismissed. However, it may be mentioned
that it has also been argued by the learned
counsel for the revisionist that the
revisionist is an old tenant of the premises
in dispute and is carrying on his business.

14. In view of this, the revision is
dismissed. However, the revisionist is
allowed three months' time to vacate the
premises in dispute.

&5,0,1$/ -85,6',&7,21
&5,0,1$/ -85,6',&7,21
&5,0,1$/ 6,'(
&5,0,1$/ 6,'(
'$7(' $//$+$%$'
'$7(' $//$+$%$'
%()25(
%()25(
7+( +21·%/( 0 .$7-8 -
7+( +21·%/( 0 .$7-8 -
7+( +21·%/( 21.$5(6+:$5 %+$77
7+( +21·%/( 21.$5(6+:$5 %+$77 -
 -

&ULPLQDO 0LVF :ULW 1R RI

3DZDQ .XPDU *XSWD
«3HWLWLRQHU
9HUVXV
8QLRQ RI ,QGLD DQG RWKHUV «5HVSRQGHQWV

&RXQVHO IRU WKH 3HWLWLRQHU
6KUL $' *LUL 6QU $GYRFDWH
6KUL 6KDVKDQN 6KHNKDU *LUL
&RXQVHO IRU WKH 5HVSRQGHQWV
6KUL 6DQMD\ .XPDU 6LQJK

&RQVWLWXWLRQ RI ,QGLD ± $UWLFOH ± WKHUH
FDQQRW EH DQ\ DEVROXWH SURSRVLWLRQ LQ
ODZ
WKDW
D
SHUVRQ
FKDOOHQJLQJ
D
GHWHQWLRQ
RUGHU
XQGHU
WKH
16$
RU
&2)(326$ PXVW LQ DOO FDVHV VXUUHQGHU
EHIRUH KH FDQ ILOH D SHWLWLRQ +HOG LQ
SDUD ±
7KHUH
FDQQRW
EH
DQ\
DEVROXWH
SURSRVLWLRQ
LQ
ODZ
WKDW
D
SHUVRQ
FKDOOHQJLQJ D GHWHQWLRQ RUGHU XQGHU WKH
16$ RU &2)(326$ PXVW LQ DOO FDVHV
VXUUHQGHU EHIRUH KH FDQ ILOH D SHWLWLRQ

By the Court

1. The petitioner in this petition has
challenged the impugned detention order
dated
16.2.2001
passed
under
the
Conservation of Foreign Exchange and
Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act,
1974.

2. Heard Sri A.D. Giri learned
Senior Advocate, for the petitioner and
Sri Sanjay Kumar Singh for the Union of
India at length and perused the petition
and annexures thereto.

3.

Learned
counsel
for
the
respondents is granted three weeks time to
file
counter
affidavit. Connect with
Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 2040 of
2001, Ashwani Kumar Jain Vs. Union of
India and other and list immediately
thereafter.

4. Sri A.D. Giri has prayed that the
petitioner should not be arrested during
the pendency of this petition. On the other
hand learned counsel for the respondents
has relied upon a decision of the Supreme
Court in Additional Secretary to the
Government of India vs. Smt. Alka
Subhash Godia and another. 1992 Supp.
(1) SCC 496 and has submitted that