High Court · 2025

has been dism issed by learned First Addit ional Dist rict Judge, Kashipur vide j udgm ent dat ed 13.11.2024. Challenging t hese t wo j udgm ent & orders, pet it ioner has approached t his Court .

3. I n t he plaint of t he suit , respondent s had pleaded t hat t hat t he shop in quest ion was const ruct ed and assessed t o Municipal Taxes, aft er t he cut off dat e indicat ed in t he second proviso t o Sect ion 2( 2) of U.P. Urban Buildings ( Regulat ion of Let t ing, Rent and Evict ion) Act , 1972 i.e. 15.04.1985. Thus, plaint iffs had cont ended t hat provisions of t he said Act are not applicable t o t he prem ises in quest ion, t herefore, suit for rent & ej ect m ent is m aint ainable against t he pet it ioner. Pet it ioner, in his Writ t en St at em ent , however, cont ended t hat t he building was const ruct ed before t he cut off dat e i.e. 15.04.1985 and, t herefore, 2 provisions of t he aforesaid Act are at t ract ed and suit for ej ect m ent would not be m aint ainable against him . Before t he t rial Court , pet it ioner m oved an applicat ion wit h t he prayer t o issue Com m ission, which m ay inspect t he shop and subm it a report regarding dat e of const ruct ion of t he shop in quest ion. Learned t rial Court rej ect ed pet it ioner ’s applicat ion by holding t hat dat e of const ruct ion of t he shop is not relevant and dat e of first assessm ent of t he shop for Municipal Taxes would be relevant for applicabilit y of t he aforesaid Act . Pet it ioner challenged t rial Court ’s order in a Revision and Revisional Court has affirm ed t he order passed by t rial Court .

4. This Court does not find any reason t o int erfere wit h t he t rial Court ’s order, as affirm ed by Revisional Court . Since pet it ioner assert ed in his Writ t en St at em ent t hat provisions of U.P. Urban Buildings ( Regulat ion of Let t ing, Rent and Evict ion) Act , 1972 are at t ract ed, as t he shop in quest ion was const ruct ed before 15.04.1985, t herefore, onus is upon him t o prove t he said fact by adducing evidence. To go inspect ion or issue Com m ission j ust decision in t he suit is t he sole prerogat ive of t he Court . I nspect ion by Court or t hrough Court appoint ed 3 com m issioner is resort ed t o only in t hose cases where on t he evidence led by t he part ies, Court is not able t o arrive at a j ust conclusion or where t he Court feels t hat t here is som e am biguit y in t he evidence which needs t o be clarified by m aking local inspect ion or t hrough Com m ission. Thus, inspect ion or issuing a Com m ission by t he Court , cannot be claim ed as of right by any part y t o a suit .

5. Since a part y t o t he suit cannot request t he Court t o collect evidence for him and every part y t o t he suit has t o st and on his own legs by adducing independent and reliable evidence, t herefore, rej ect ion of pet it ioner ’s applicat ion by learned t rial Court , cannot be fault ed. The Revisional Court was t hus j ust ified in affirm ing t rial Court ’s order.

6. Thus, t here is no scope for int erference in t he m at t er. The writ pet it ions fail and are dism issed. I t is, however, m ade clear t hat t he pending suit shall be decided by learned t rial Court uninfluenced by any observat ion m ade t he j udgm ent and orders im pugned in t hese writ pet it ions. ________________________ M A N OJ K UM A R TI W A RI , J. Navin NAVEEN CHANDRA DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=3be23325146e76a0642bdf4943fb9046f487df006da82a131bb4e4403d3c0a15 , postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=18167EEFB5CA8CFFD421A103819DA875643AF56D653D095C6ED9A86 DAAB21CE5, cn=NAVEEN CHANDRA 4