Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 1397 (ALL)

Sunita Gupta v. Prabhat Chandra Tandon

2010-04-28

PRAKASH KRISHNA

body2010
JUDGMENT 1. Order on Recall Application : The present revision was dismissed in default on 12th of August, 2009. Thereafter, a restoration application was filed which was also dismissed in default on 22.1.2010. 2. This is an application to recall the aforesaid two orders and to restore the revision to its original number. 3. Heard the counsel for the parties. Cause shown is sufficient. Both the orders aforesaid are hereby recalled subject to payment of Rs.5,000/- as cost which has already been paid to the learned counsel for the opposite party. Order on Revision:- 4. This revision is directed against judgment and decree dated 2nd of March, 2009 passed in SCC suit No.12 of 2008 : Prabhat Chandra Tandon Vs. Smt. Sunita Gupta and another whereby the Court below has decreed the suit for recovery of arrears of rent, ejectment of present applicant and damages etc.. The revision has been filed under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused record. It is not in dispute that there is a relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and the monthly rate of rent in respect of the disputed shop is Rs.2500/-. This being so, the provisions of the U.P. Act No.13 of 1972 are not applicable. The learned counsel for the applicant could not point out any legal infirmity in the notice given under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. 6. The learned counsel for the applicant could submit only this much that the property in dispute was sublet due to financial crisis and now, the sub tenant has been removed from the property in dispute. Be that as it may, in view of the fact that the provisions of the U.P. Act No.13 of 1972 are not applicable and there is no illegality in the notice terminating the tenancy, I do not find any good ground to interfere in the revision. No other point was pressed. The revision lacks merit and it is dismissed summarily. 7. No other point was pressed. The revision lacks merit and it is dismissed summarily. 7. The applicant tenant shall not be liable for eviction till 31st of December, 2010 provided she deposits the entire arrears of rent at the decreed rate and damages at the rate of Rs.3,000/- per month as directed earlier by this Court for the period up to 31st of December, 2010 within a period of one month after adjusting the amount, if any, already deposited. She will also file an undertaking on affidavit within the aforesaid period of one month before the Court below that she will vacate the disputed accommodation on or before 31st of December, 2010 and will hand over its peaceful vacant possession to the plaintiff landlord. 8. If she fails to comply with any of the conditions stipulated above, it shall be open to the plaintiff landlord to put the decree in execution.