Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 3408 (ALL)

Manik Chandra Rai v. Veer Singh

2009-11-04

SHISHIR KUMAR

body2009
JUDGMENT HON. SHISHIR KUMAR, J. Heard Sri Avinash Chandra Srivastava, the learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri M.K. Gupta, learned counsel for the respondent. 2. This writ petition has been filed for quashing the orders dated 11.8.2009 and 22.1.2007 passed by the courts below, Annexures-8 and 7 to the writ petition. 3. Respondent being a landlord filed a suit for arrears of rent and ejectment in the year 1994. Various issues were framed and the trial court dismissed the suit. A revision was preferred and by order dated 18.5.2004, the revision was allowed and the matter was remanded back. The Judge Small Causes Court again framed various issues and dismissed the suit vide order dated 15.12.2004. Again a revision was preferred and the same was allowed and the matter was remanded back. The Judge Small Causes Court has framed five issues and decided the case against the petitioner -vide the judgment and order dated 22.1.2007. The petitioner aggrieved by the aforesaid order filed a revision. The revision too has been dismissed by the order impugned. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the finding to this effect recorded by the court below that the petitioners have not deposited the rent under Section 20 (4) of the Act is not correct. As regards the finding that the notice was served upon the petitioners is also based on no evidence. A specific averment has been made by the petitioners before the Court that a statement of the postman has been obtained because the postman was having enmity with the petitioners due to the fact that he was not being tipped on festivals. A further submission has been made that the rent was deposited, therefore, it cannot be held that there was any default and the petitioners are not liable for ejectment. The revisional court has also not considered the said finding. 5. I have considered the submissions made on behalf of the petitioners and perused the record. A further submission has been made that the rent was deposited, therefore, it cannot be held that there was any default and the petitioners are not liable for ejectment. The revisional court has also not considered the said finding. 5. I have considered the submissions made on behalf of the petitioners and perused the record. From the findings recorded by the courts below it is clear that this fact has been admitted by the parties that receipts were being issued after the payment of rent but the receipts which were submitted by the petitioners as 29C, 30C, 31C and 32C , a specific denial has been made by the respondent landlord that the receipts do not bear the signature and from 1.6.1984 to 31.10.1984, the rent has not been paid. The factum of notice has been served which is proved from the statement made by the postman before the Court. A further finding has also been recorded that only Rs.12,000/- has been deposited instead of the total amount and the deficit is Rs.8,200/- and admittedly the said amount has not been deposited. Therefore, it will be treated that the petitioner has not complied with the provisions of Section 20 (4) of the Act and therefore, they cannot escape from the ejectment form the premises in dispute. 6. The revisional court has also recorded the said finding that notice was received and in spite of the receipt of the notice and after determination of tenancy, the rent was not paid and on the first date of hearing and balance amount of rent mentioned in the notice was not deposited under Section 20 (4) of the Act. As regards the notice, it has been proved on the basis of the statement of the postman. In my opinion the findings recorded by the courts below are findings of fact and it cannot be interfered by this Court while exercising the power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 7. The writ petition is devoid of merit and is hereby dismissed. 8. At last the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-tenant submits that some reasonable time may be granted to them to vacate the said premises. 7. The writ petition is devoid of merit and is hereby dismissed. 8. At last the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-tenant submits that some reasonable time may be granted to them to vacate the said premises. Accordingly, six months' time is granted to the petitioners to vacate premises in dispute subject to condition that the petitioners will submit an affidavit in the shape of undertaking before the Judge Small Causes Court specifically indicating therein that they will handover peaceful possession of said accommodation without inducting any third person within a period of six months and will pay the arrears of rent as well as current rent, then and in that condition, the Judge Small Causes Court will grant six months time to the petitioners to vacate the said premises. 9. No order is passed as to costs.