Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 2646 (ALL)

Surendra Kumar v. Kanta Singhal

2010-08-30

RAKESH TIWARI

body2010
JUDGMENT Hon'ble Rakesh Tiwari, J. - Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 2. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenges the orders dated 3.4.2007 passed by Addl. Civil Judge (Senior Division)/Judge, Small Causes Court, Ghaziabad and order dated 28.7.2010 passed by Additional District Judge, Court No. 1, Ghaziabad by which petitioner was directed to pay rent @ Rs.1000/- per month and vacate the premises in dispute within a month from the date of judgment. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner claimed himself to be a tenant of Sri Jai Prakash in House No. 40/59 situated at Mohalla-Arjun Nagar, Ghaziabad since 1.7.1988 at the rate of Rs.225/- per month. The aforesaid house was purchased by Smt. Kanta Singhal wife of Narendra Kumar Singhal from Sri Jai Prakash the erstwhile owner by a registered sale deed dated 26.4.2005. She then informed the petitioner to pay the rent of said house to her. The petitioner then started to pay the rent as he was paying it to erstwhile owner. Subsequently, Smt. Kanta Singhal instituted suit no. 15 of 2006 before Judge, Small Causes Court, Ghaziabad for arrears of rent and eviction for the period 1.4.2003 to 31.1.2004. The suit was decreed by order dated 3.4.2007 directing the petitioner to vacate the accommodation in his possession for payment of the arrears of rent amounting to Rs.10,133/- as well as Rs.1000/- per month from the date of filing the suit. 4. The suit was contested by the petitioner claiming that since rent receipts were not issued, therefore, he was not on default in payment of its dues. It was further pleaded by the petitioner that signatures on blank papers had been taken for the purpose of preparation of receipt no. 47-Ga. 5. The Judge, Small Causes Court, Ghaziabad after hearing learned counsel for the parties, recorded findings of fact that the landlord had proved his case on basis of paper no. 47 Ga, the rent receiptl; that petitioner is tenant at the rate of Rs.1,000/- per month and not @ Rs.225/- per month as was being claimed by the petitioner. The findings recorded by the trial court were confirmed by the revisional court in Civil Revision No.49 of 2007 by order dated 28.7.2010. 6. 47 Ga, the rent receiptl; that petitioner is tenant at the rate of Rs.1,000/- per month and not @ Rs.225/- per month as was being claimed by the petitioner. The findings recorded by the trial court were confirmed by the revisional court in Civil Revision No.49 of 2007 by order dated 28.7.2010. 6. The orders of the court below are challenged on the ground that the courts below have recorded incorrect findings regarding rate of rent though there is no dispute that the petitioner was tenant in the house since 1988; that findings of the court below are without application of mind; and that the court below have wrongly come to the conclusion that rent of the accommodation in possession of the petitioner was Rs.1000/- per month, though neither evidence nor proof has been produced by the landlady that rent of accommodation in dispute was Rs.1000/- except paper no. 47-Ga which was forged and prepared document by the respondent. 7. Sri M.K. Gupta, appearing for the respondent has urged that both the courts below have recorded categorical findings of fact that the rent of the premises in dispute was Rs.1,000/- per month which was proved from the rent receipt (papger no. 47-Ga) filed before the court below. He vehemently denied that rent receipt was not issued on printed receipts. 8. After hearing the counsel for the parties and on perusal of record it appears that the courts below have recorded conclusive findings of fact to the effect that petitioner was in default for payment of rent for more than four months @ Rs.1000/- per month and since rent receipt had been issued by the landlady, the court below have disbelieved the contention of the petitioner that he was paying monthly rent of Rs.225/- for which no rent receipt is alleged was issued by the landlady who is said to be obtaining his signatures on blank paper for the purpose of fabricating the rent receipts. 9. The findings of fact recorded by the courts below is based on evidence and the courts below have come to its conclusion on the basis of cogent reason. In fact the courts below have found that there was not even an iota of evidence that petitioner was tenant @ Rs.225/- p.m. and had miserably failed to prove his case. 10. The findings of fact recorded by the courts below is based on evidence and the courts below have come to its conclusion on the basis of cogent reason. In fact the courts below have found that there was not even an iota of evidence that petitioner was tenant @ Rs.225/- p.m. and had miserably failed to prove his case. 10. For all the reasons stated above, the Court is of the view that there is no illegality or infirmity in the orders of the court below which has rightly come to the conclusion on the basis of the documentary evidence that petitioner was tenant at the rate of Rs.1000/- per month. 11. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that petitioner may be given six months time to vacate the house in question. Sri M.K. Gupta, appearing for the respondent has submitted that reasonable time is three months for vacating the house in dispute. However, in view of the fact that petitioner is an old man, four months time is allowed to the petitioner to vacate and handover the peaceful possession to the landlord, provided petitioner pays the entire decreetal amount till he vacate the house within four months. 12. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.