Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 3065 (ALL)

Govind Ram v. Thakur Ras Behari

2009-09-07

PRAKASH KRISHNA

body2009
JUDGMENT Hon'ble Prakash Krishna,J. Raising a short controversy, the present revision is at the instance of the tenant under section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts, Act against the judgment and decree dated 10-2-1992 whereby a decree for recovery of arrears of rent, damages and ejectment has been passed against the applicant. 2. The case of the plaintiff opposite party was that the defendant tenant paid the rent upto June, 1988. The tenancy of the defendant has been terminated by means of notice dated 13-10-1988 which was served on 14-10-1988. 3. In reply, it was pleaded by the tenant that he is not in arrears of rent and in any view, the decree for eviction cannot be passed against him in view of the fact that on the date of the notice, he was not in arrears of rent for four months or more. 4. Issues were struck by the trial court and the suit, as stated above, has been decreed. 5. Sri V.K. Agrawal, learned counsel for the applicant submits that in view of the findings recorded by the trial court under issue no. 2 that the rent has been paid by the tenant upto June, 1988, the tenant was not in arrears of rent for four months or more on the date of notice dated 13-10-1988. 6. Learned counsel for the plaintiff opposite party, on the other hand, supports the impugned order. 7. Considered the respective submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. 8. Section 20 of U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 provides bar on suit for eviction of tenant except on the grounds specified therein. One of the grounds for seeking eviction as provided under sub section (2) (a) of Section 20 is - where a tenant is in arrears of rent for not less than four months, and has failed to pay the same to the landlord within one month from the date of service upon him of a notice of demand. 9. Taking the facts of the case as pleaded and found by the court below, it is but obvious that on the date of notice, the tenant was not in arrears of rent for four months or more. In other words, the arrears of rent was for less than four months. 10. 9. Taking the facts of the case as pleaded and found by the court below, it is but obvious that on the date of notice, the tenant was not in arrears of rent for four months or more. In other words, the arrears of rent was for less than four months. 10. In this view of the matter, the question raised by the learned counsel for the applicant that the court below was not justified in passing the decree for eviction against the tenant, deserves acceptance. The trial court some how over looked this aspect of the case and committed illegality in decreeing the suit for eviction also. 11. Learned counsel for the plaintiff opposite party submits that the property in dispute belongs to Thakur Ras Behari Maharaj and the prices of immovable property have sky rocketed. If the Court is going to vacate the decree for eviction, the Court should enhance the rent to a reasonable extent. Learned counsel for the applicant fairly accepted the said position and has agreed to pay the rent which may be fixed by the Court. 12. Taking into consideration the entire facts and circumstances of the case, it is provided that the applicant tenant shall henceforth pay the rent at the rate of Rs. 600/- per month w.e.f. October, 2009. 13. Subject to the above, the revision succeeds and is allowed, so far as it relates to the decree for eviction is concerned. Rest of the decree remains intact. 14. No order as to costs.