Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 1937 (ALL)

Abdul Rasid v. Vidya Devi

2011-08-16

SHASHI KANT GUPTA

body2011
Hon'ble Shashi Kant Gupta, J.:- 1. This writ petition has been filed against the concurrent judgment and orders dated 28.2.2011 passed by the District Judge, Etah in Revision No. 14 of 2008, Abdul Rashid Vs. Smt. Vidya Devi, and 7.4.2008 passed by Judge Small Cause/Civil Judge (S. D.), Etah in Small Causes Suit No. 7 of 1996, Smt. Vidhya Devi Vs. Abdul Rashid. 2. Brief facts of the case are as follows; 3. A suit for arrears of rent and ejectment was filed by the respondent-landlord against the petitioner and the said suit was decreed by order dated 7.4.2008. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order dated 7.4.2008 a revision was filed which was registered as Revision No. 14 of 2008. The said revision was also dismissed by judgment and order dated 28.2.2011. Hence the present revision. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. 5. The courts below on the basis of evidence on record particularly the report of the hand-writing expert have held that an agreement with regard to enhancement of rent from Rs. 200/- to Rs. 500/- was executed between the parties in the year 1994, as such, the petitioner was liable to pay enhanced rent of Rs. 500/- per month. It was submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that a compromise dated 23.1.2011 was executed between the parties during the pendency of the revision and the said compromise was filed before the revisional court. In reply to this, learned counsel for the respondent has drawn my attention to the order dated 29.1.2011 passed by the revisional court (certified copy of the said order was placed before me) wherein the revisional court has specifically observed that the petitioner had made all efforts to delay the proceedings of the case despite the specific order of High Court to decide the Revision No. 14 of 2008 within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the order. 6. It also appears from the perusal of the record that the said compromise was neither pursued nor pressed by the petitioner either before the Lok Adalat or before the courts below. It appears that the said compromise was filed simply to delay the proceedings of the case. 7. 6. It also appears from the perusal of the record that the said compromise was neither pursued nor pressed by the petitioner either before the Lok Adalat or before the courts below. It appears that the said compromise was filed simply to delay the proceedings of the case. 7. Both the courts below after perusing the pleadings and evidence on record held that the petitioner has committed default in payment of rent and further held that an agreement with regard to enhancement of rent from Rs. 200/- to Rs. 500/- was executed between the parties in the year 1994, as such, the petitioner was liable to pay the enhanced rent. 8. The finding recorded by the courts below is a finding of fact based on appraisal of evidence produced in the case and does not suffer from error of law. Both the courts below have given cogent, convincing and satisfactory reasons while passing the orders in favour of the respondent-landlady. The finding recorded by the courts below are neither perverse nor based on extraneous or irrelevant material and have been passed on meticulous evaluation of evidence and material on record. 9.. No other point has been pressed by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 10. I do not see any merit in the writ petition, the writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. 11. After the judgment was dictated, learned counsel for the petitioner urged that at least three months' time may be granted to him for vacating the premises in question. The learned counsel for the landlord did not raise any objection to it. 12. As urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner, three months' time is granted to the petitioner to vacate the premises in dispute provided the petitioner gives his undertaking in the form of an affidavit before the prescribed authority within one month from today specifically stating therein that he will handover the peaceful possession of the said accommodation to the landlord opposite parties without inducting any third person within a period of three months' from today. It is further provided that the petitioner shall pay the entire decretal amount including damages upto the date of delivery of the vacant possession of the disputed premises within one month from today. 13. It is further provided that the petitioner shall pay the entire decretal amount including damages upto the date of delivery of the vacant possession of the disputed premises within one month from today. 13. In the event of default in of any of the aforesaid conditions, the landlord opposite parties will be at liberty to proceed to evict the petitioner if necessary by coercive process with the aid of police force.