Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 2682 (ALL)

Vijay Pratap Singh v. S. K. Anand

2011-11-28

PRAKASH KRISHNA

body2011
Hon'ble Prakash Krishna,J.:- The present revision has been filed under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Causes Court Act and is directed against the judgment and decree dated 26th October, 2010 passed in S.C.C. Suit No. 67 of 2008. The property in dispute is House No. 205/80, Tagore Town, Allahabad which was admittedly let out to the applicant by the plaintiff opposite party herein. There is no dispute between the parties either with regard to relationship of landlord and tenant or with regard to rate of rent. Tenancy was at the rate of Rs.3500/- per month and as such the provisions of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 are not applicable. Before filing the suit, tenancy of the applicant was terminated by means of notice dated 28th October, 2008 stating that he is in arrears of rent from 15th July, 2008 to 27th September, 2008. Receipt of notice is admitted to the tenant. The suit has been decreed for recovery of arrears of rent, ejectment and damages with effect from 15th July, 2008. Learned counsel for the applicant in support of the revision submits the following two points for consideration:- First, the tenant denied that he was in arrears of rent for the months of July, 2008 and August, 2008. Specifically, it was set out in written statement and he has examined his son in support thereof but without recording any finding, the trial court has decreed the suit for recovery of arrears of rent/damages w.e.f. 15th July, 2008. Secondly, the notice is bad in as much as, through the said notice, the landlady opposite party herein also demanded the arrears of rent for the aforesaid period. Shri A.K. Gupta, Advocate appearing on behalf of plaintiff opposite party, on the other hand, supports the impugned judgment. Considered the respective submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. Taking first point first, it may be noted that there is no specific finding with regard to the period since when the tenant has not paid rent. It may also be noted in the written statement tenant has pleaded that he has paid rent for July, 2008 and August, 2008. Thus, there was a dispute between the parties but the trial court without deciding the said dispute has decreed the recovery of arrears of rent w.e.f. 15th July, 2008. It may also be noted in the written statement tenant has pleaded that he has paid rent for July, 2008 and August, 2008. Thus, there was a dispute between the parties but the trial court without deciding the said dispute has decreed the recovery of arrears of rent w.e.f. 15th July, 2008. Instead of remanding the matter back on this issue, Shri A.K. Gupta, appearing on behalf of plaintiff opposite party herein, submits that to that extent, the decree may be modified and he has no objection. In view of the above concession given by the learned counsel for the plaintiff opposite party, the decree so far as it relates for recovery of arrears of rent is concerned, is modified by providing that the defendant-tenant shall be liable to pay the arrears of rent/damages w.e.f. 15th September, 2008 onwards. So far as, the second point is concerned, I find no merit therein. Admittedly, the provisions of U.P. Act No. 13 of 972 are not applicable. Learned counsel for the opposite party submits that tenancy was fixed term tenancy and after expiry of the lease period, tenancy of the tenant has come to an end automatically and no notice was needed. Even if, in the notice the rent has been demanded, it will not vitiate the notice. There is no dispute that the notice fulfills the requirements of Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. Any other point was not pressed. The applicant-tenant shall be liable to pay the arrears of rent/damages w.e.f. 15th September, 2008 onwards to this extent the decree is modified. At the end, learned counsel for the applicant submits that some reasonable time to vacate the disputed accommodation may be granted to which learned counsel for the opposite party has no objection. Time to vacate the disputed accommodation upto 31st of March, 2012 is granted provided the applicant deposits the entire arrears of rent/damages as per decree after adjusting the amount, if any, already deposited for the period upto March, 2012, within a period of one month, before the trial court and will also furnish undertaking on affidavit that he will vacate the disputed accommodation on or before 31st March, 2012 and shall hand over its peaceful possession to the plaintiffs landlady, within the same period. In case of default, the time granted by this Court shall stand vacated. In case of default, the time granted by this Court shall stand vacated. Subject to above, the revision is substantially dismissed.