Allahabad High Court

NASEEM KHANversusGOPAL KRISHNA GANGAL

Decided: 5 May 2026
Bench: Y K SRIVASTAVA

Holding

The Uttar Pradesh Act No. 13 of 1972 does not apply as the petitioner failed to establish the statutory date of completion, and the lower courts' findings are affirmed.

Summary

The petition under Article 227 challenged the Small Causes Court and the revisional court's orders that decreed eviction of the petitioner, a tenant, and awarded arrears of rent to the landlord. The petitioner contended that the Uttar Pradesh Act No. 13 of 1972 should apply, arguing that the building was completed in 1991, which would make the Act applicable under the deeming provisions of Section 2(2). The landlord countered that the tenant had been in possession since 1988 and that no evidence supported the 1991 construction claim. The High Court held that the petitioner failed to produce any documentary or reliable oral evidence to establish the date of completion, first assessment, or first occupation as required by the Act, and therefore the Act could not be invoked. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition, but granted the tenant nine months to vacate the premises subject to specific undertakings and payment conditions.

Issues considered

The applicability of Uttar Pradesh Act No. 13 of 1972 to the tenancy dispute based on the date of building completion.
Whether the petitioner has discharged the burden of proving the requisite facts for the Act's applicability.

Legislation cited

Uttar Pradesh Act No. 13 of 1972 — s. Section 2(2)

Subjects

Article 227
Tenancy
Eviction
U.P. Act 13 of 1972
Building completion date
Burden of proof
Small Causes Court
Revision
Possession

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 2361 of 2026

Naseem Khan
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus

Gopal Krishna Gangal
.....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Rajeshwari Prasad
Counsel for Respondent(s) : Ashish Agrawal, Shekhar Gangal

Court No. - 35
HON'BLE DR. YOGENDRA KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J.

Heard Sri Rajeshwari Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri
Ashish Agrawal, learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

The present petition has been filed seeking to assail the order dated
17.02.2025 passed by the Judge, Small Causes Court, Aligarh, in S.C.C. Suit
No. 28 of 2012 (Shri Gopal Krishna Gangal vs. Shri Naseem Khan),
whereby the suit instituted by the respondent-landlord for ejectment and
arrears of rent against the tenant came to be decreed. Challenge has also
been laid to the subsequent order dated 03.10.2025 passed by the District
Judge, Aligarh in S.C.C. Revision No. 56 of 2025 (Shri Naseem Khan vs.
Shri Gopal Krishna Gangal), affirming the judgment of the trial court.

The dispute arises out of S.C.C. Suit No. 28 of 2012 instituted by the
respondent-landlord against the petitioner-tenant in respect of a shop situated
at Battomal Market, Palval Road, Qasba Khair, District Aligarh. The
petitioner claimed tenancy since the year 1987 at a monthly rent of Rs.400/-.
Alleging default in payment of rent and termination of tenancy by notice
dated 10.05.2012, the respondent instituted the suit for ejectment and arrears
of rent. The suit came to be decreed by the trial court and the revision
preferred thereagainst has also been dismissed, giving rise to the present
petition.

The sole ground urged in challenge to the orders passed by the Small Causes
Court and the revisional court pertains to the applicability of U.P. Act No. 13
of 1972. It is contended that in view of Explanation I(a) to the second
proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 2 of the Act, the construction of a
A227 No. 2361 of 2026
2

building is deemed to have been completed on the date on which 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 assessment thereof comes into effect; where the said dates are
different, the earliest of such 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 purposes of supervising the construction or guarding
the building under construction) for the first time.

It is sought to be urged that in the present case none of the aforesaid dates
were available and, according to the tenant, the building was constructed in
the year 1991; hence, the Act would be applicable.

Learned counsel appearing for the respondent, however, has pointed out that
as per the tenant’s own stand before the trial court, he had been inducted as
tenant in the year 1987 and, upon construction of the new shop in the year
1988, he was put in possession thereof. It is, therefore, submitted that the
assertion regarding construction in the year 1991 is wholly baseless and
cannot be accepted.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to substantiate the plea
that the building had been constructed prior to 26th April, 1985, i.e. the cut-
off date specified in the second proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 2, on
the basis whereof alone the provisions of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 could be
claimed to be applicable.

It is well settled that where a tenant seeks protection under the provisions of
U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972, the burden lies upon the party asserting
applicability of the Act to establish the foundational facts attracting such
protection, including the date of completion of construction where
exemption under Section 2(2) is in issue. In the absence of cogent
documentary or reliable oral evidence regarding completion, assessment,
first occupation, or any other circumstance contemplated under Explanation
I to the second proviso to Section 2(2), the benefit of the statute cannot be
claimed merely on bald assertions.

It is equally well settled that the question regarding applicability of U.P. Act
No. 13 of 1972, where dependent upon the date of completion of
A227 No. 2361 of 2026
3

construction, has to be determined strictly in accordance with the deeming
provisions contained in Explanation I to the second proviso to Section 2(2)
of the Act. The Supreme Court in Om Prakash Gupta vs. Dig Vijendra Pal
Gupta (1982) 2 SCC 61 has held that where the building is subject to
municipal assessment, the date on which the first assessment comes into
effect would be relevant, and only in the absence of such report, record or
assessment, the date of first actual occupation can be taken into
consideration.

In the present case, except a bald plea regarding construction in the year
1991, no reliable material has been brought on record to establish
completion, first assessment or first occupation in the manner contemplated
under the statute.

In view of the aforesaid, the findings concurrently recorded by the two
courts below that U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 is not applicable to the premises
in question do not warrant interference.

No other ground has been urged in support of the challenge which may
persuade this Court to exercise jurisdiction under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India.

At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioners prays for indulgence by way
of grant of nine months’ time to vacate the premises in question. Learned
counsel appearing for the respondent, on instructions, states that he has no
objection to the prayer so made.

Accordingly, while dismissing the petition, this Court grants nine months’
time to the petitioners to vacate and hand over peaceful possession of the
premises in question to the respondent-landlord on or before 09.02.2027,
subject to the following conditions:

(i) The petitioner-tenant shall file an undertaking before the Judge, Small
Causes Court, Aligarh, stating that peaceful possession of the premises in
question shall be handed over to the respondent-landlord on or before
09.02.2027;

(ii) The said undertaking shall be filed within a period of two weeks from
today;
A227 No. 2361 of 2026
4

(iii) The petitioners shall also file an undertaking that the entire arrears, after
adjusting the amount already deposited, shall be deposited within four weeks
from today;

(iv) The petitioners shall further deposit monthly use and occupation charges
at the rate of Rs. 4,000/- per month for future months commencing from
June, 2026, by the 7th day of each succeeding month, as agreed between
learned counsel for the parties.

It is made clear that in the event of default in compliance with any of the
aforesaid conditions, the protection granted by this Court shall stand vacated
automatically, and it shall be open to the respondent-landlord to seek
enforcement of the decree passed in the S.C.C. Suit in accordance with law.

Subject to the aforesaid directions, the petition stands dismissed.

(Dr. Yogendra Kumar Srivastava,J.)
May 6, 2026
Arun K. Singh

Digitally signed by :-
ARUN KUMAR SINGH
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…