Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 2397 (ALL)

Kuldeep Narain Tiwari v. Beena Saxena

2009-06-22

S.U.KHAN

body2009
JUDGMENT This is a case which deserves entry in the Limca Books of record. Suit for eviction filed by landlord in the year 1973 (S.C.C. Suit no.8 of 1973) is still pending at the revisional stage before learned A.D.J., Court no.VIII Etah. (S.C.C.Revision no.14 of 1996) Revision itself is pending since 1996. Petitioner defendant filed application before lower revisional Court seeking amendment in the written statement raising certain legal pleas which has been rejected by the impugned order dated 06.04.2009. 2. Lower revisional court itself has held that the pleas sought to be added through amendment are already there in the original written statement. 3. Legal points even if not specifically taken in the written statement may be permitted to be argued, provided that sufficient facts/evidence regarding the same is on record. Pleadings are required to contain facts and not law. If two notices are given and landlord admits that he had given both notices then the question as to whether second notice waives the first notice or not is purely a point of law which may be permitted to be raised even without any specific plea in the written statement. Similarly, applicability of the Act and jurisdiction of J.S.C.C. are also legal pleas. 4. Accordingly, impugned order is modified and it is directed that while deciding the revision all those legal pleas which are available to the tenant petitioner on the basis of material ready on record shall be permitted to be raised. 5. Property in dispute consist of a house and 5 shops rate of rent of which in the year 1969-70 was Rs. 50/- per month. Accordingly, it is further directed that during the pendency of the revision before the court below eviction of the tenant shall remain stayed provided that w.e.f. June 2009 onward he deposits before the lower revisional Court rent/damages for use and occupation @ Rs. 1000/- per month by 7 of each succeeding month. The amount so deposited shall at once be permitted to be withdrawn by the landlord respondent. In case of two defaults stay order shall stand automatically discharged. Stay order passed by the lower revisional court is modified accordingly. 6. This direction is being issued in view of Supreme Court authority of Atma Ram Properties Vs. Federal Motors, 2005 (1) SCC 705 . 7. In case of two defaults stay order shall stand automatically discharged. Stay order passed by the lower revisional court is modified accordingly. 6. This direction is being issued in view of Supreme Court authority of Atma Ram Properties Vs. Federal Motors, 2005 (1) SCC 705 . 7. It is further directed that the entire decreetal amount due till 31.5.2009 shall also be deposited before the lower revisional Court after adjusting any amount already deposited within three months and the same shall also be paid forthwith to the landlords respondents. 8. In case of default in depositing the decreetal amount within the aforesaid period stay order shall stand automatically discharged and judgment and decree passed by the J.S.C.C. shall be executed forthwith. 9. With the above observation writ petition is disposed of. 10. This order has been passed without issuing notices or hearing any one on behalf of landlords respondents. If they feel aggrieved by this order they are at liberty to apply for recall of this order. 11. Revision must be decided very very expeditiously. If landlord in future takes more than two adjournments in the revision then this condition of deposit of Rs.1000/- per month shall stand modified and tenant should be required to deposit only Rs.500/- per month. It is further directed that if five adjournments in future are sought by the landlord in the revision then the condition of deposit of Rs.1000/- per month shall stand withdrawn. 12. Office is directed to send copy of this judgment to the Court of A.D.J. Court no.8 Etah.