Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 498 (UTT)

KALU RAM v. SANJEEV KUMAR

2009-10-07

PRAFULLA C.PANT

body2009
JUDGMENT Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. By means of this writ petition moved under article 226 read with 227 of Constitution of India, the petition has sought writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the judgment and order dated 10.09.2009 passed by the Revisional Court (Addl. District Judge/First Fast Track Court, Roorkee), whereby said court has affirmed the judgment and decree dated 23.02.2008 passed by Judge, Small Cause Court/Civil Judge (Sr. Div.), Roorkee, District Haridwar. The trial court had decreed the suit for ejectment of the tenant (present petitioner) and also for recovery of arrears of rent and mesne profit. 3. Perusal of the impugned order shows that there is concurrent finding of fact that the respondents are the landlords and the petitioner (defendant) was their tenant on rent at the rate of Rs. 150/- per month in the premises in question situated in village Shahpur, Bhagwanpur, District Haridwar. Both the courts below have found that the tenant committed default in payment of rent as such termination of tenancy by serving notice under section 106 of Transfer of Properties Act, 1882, was lawful. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that since the petitioner (tenant) is a Carpenter, as such the work done by him, which involves change of raw wood into various items like chairs and tables, constitutes manufacturing process and as such the tenancy of the defendant could not have been terminated by serving on him a one month notice. I have gone through the provisions contained in section 106 of Transfer of Properties Act, 1882, and also the papers on record. Section 106 of the Act begins with the expression “In absence of a contract”. The contract between the parties may be express or implied. From the pleadings of the parties, it is clear that the tenancy between them was admittedly month to month basis tenancy. As such it cannot be said that it is the case in which the parties had not contracted the monthly tenancy. That being so, even if the Carpenter’s work constitutes manufacturing process, it cannot be said the tenancy would be deemed to be year to year one. Therefore this Court does not find substance in the submission advanced on behalf of the petitioner. 5. That being so, even if the Carpenter’s work constitutes manufacturing process, it cannot be said the tenancy would be deemed to be year to year one. Therefore this Court does not find substance in the submission advanced on behalf of the petitioner. 5. Having considered submissions of learned counsel for the parties and after going through the papers on record, in the above circumstances, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned order passed by the courts below and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. The writ petition is dismissed summarily. However, considering the facts and circumstances of the case the petitioner is allowed to vacate the premises in question by 30th of June, 2010 and deliver the possession to the landlord, failing which the respondents/plaintiff may get the decree executed. The aforesaid period allowed to the petitioner would be on the condition that he shall deposit entire decretal amount towards arrears of rent and mesne profits within a period of one month from today. (Stay application No. 8401/2009 also stands disposed of).