Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 1721 (ALL)

NAND RAM v. J S C C JALAUN AT ORAL

2008-08-21

S.U.KHAN

body2008
S. U. KHAN, J. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. This is tenants writ petition. Landlord-respondent No. 3 Prem Swarup Mishra filed S. C. C. Suit No. 12 of 1990 against tenant-petitioner for his eviction and recovery of ar rears of rent. It was stated that the shop in dispute was constructed in 1985-86 hence Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 was not applicable thereupon. It was further stated that property in dispute which is a shop was given on rent to the petitioner with ef fect from 1. 8. 1986 at the rate of rent of Rs. 200/- per month and petitioner paid rent only for three months and no rent had been paid since 1. 11. 1986. 2. Tenant-petitioner filed written statement and contended that building was old construction hence the Act was applicable; that rate of rent was Rs. 150/- per month; that money order of rent sent by him was refused by the land lord. The Trial Court held that rate of rent was Rs. 200/- per month. Judge Small Causes Court further held that the Act was not applicable. It was also held that rent had not been paid since 1. 11. 1986. Accordingly, suit was decreed through judgment and decree dated 19. 12. 1995 for eviction as well as for recov ery of arrears of rent. Against the said judgment and decree S. C. C. Revision No. 1 of 1996 was filed by the petitioner. Vth Additional District Judge, Jalaun at Oral dismissed the revision on 31. 10. 2000 hence this writ petition. 3. Revisional Court held that as the petitioner was defaulter hence there was no need to decide as to whether Act was applicable or not. 4. Landlord had tiled three counter foils of the receipts for the months of August, September and October, 1986 showing payment of rent at the rate of Ks. 200/- per month. Both the Courts below held that counter foils of the receipts were proved by the landlord. Revisional Court tallied the signatures of the tenant on the counter foils of the receipts and on vakalatnama, written state ment etc. and held that both the signatures were quite similar. Tenant did not adduce any ex parte evidence. 5. Tenant had deposited some amount claiming benefit of section 20 (4) of the Act. Revisional Court tallied the signatures of the tenant on the counter foils of the receipts and on vakalatnama, written state ment etc. and held that both the signatures were quite similar. Tenant did not adduce any ex parte evidence. 5. Tenant had deposited some amount claiming benefit of section 20 (4) of the Act. However, the amount was deposited at the rate of Rs. ISO/- per month and as it was held by the Courts below that rate of rent was Rs. 200/- per month hence deposit was quite short. 6. I do not find least error in the findings of the Revisional Court. Findings regarding rate of rent being Rs. 200/- per month and not Rs. ISO/- per month are basically findings of fact and even otherwise those findings are quite correct and based upon correct appraisal of evidence. 7. Accordingly, writ petition is dismissed. 8. Tenant-petitioner is granted six months time to vacate provided that: 1. Within one month from today tenant files an undertaking before the prescribed authority to the effect that on or before the expiry of aforesaid period of six months he will willingly vacate and handover possession of the property in dispute to the landlord-respondent. 2. For this period of six months, which has been granted to the tenant-petitioner to vacate, he is required to pay Rs. 6,000/- (at the rate of Rs. 1,000/- per month) as rent/damages for use and occupation. This amount shall also be deposited within one month before the prescribed authority and shall immediately be paid to the landlord-respondent. 3. Within one month from today tenant shall deposit entire decreetal amount due till date before prescribed authority for immediate payment to landlord-respondent. 8. In case of default in compliance of any of these conditions tenant-peti tioner shall be evicted through process of Court after one month. It is further directed that in case undertaking is not filed or decreetal amount and Rs. 6,000/- are not deposited within one month then tenant-petitioner shall be li able to pay damages at the rate of Rs. 2,000/- per month since after one month till the date of actual vacation. 9. Similarly, if after filing the aforesaid undertaking and depositing decreetal amount and Rs. 6,000/- the shop in dispute is not vacated on the expiry of six months then damages for use and occupation shall be payable at the rate of Rs. 2,000/- per month since after one month till the date of actual vacation. 9. Similarly, if after filing the aforesaid undertaking and depositing decreetal amount and Rs. 6,000/- the shop in dispute is not vacated on the expiry of six months then damages for use and occupation shall be payable at the rate of Rs. 2,000/- per month since after six months till actual vacation. It is need less to add that this direction is in addition to the right of the landlord to file contempt petition for violation of undertaking and initiate execution proceed ings under section 23 of the Act. Writ Petition Dismissed. .