Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 2817 (ALL)

Raj Kumari and Others v. Rajeev Kumar Singh

2011-12-12

DILIP GUPTA

body2011
Hon'ble Dilip Gupta, J.: - This petition seeks the quashing of the order dated 6th November, 2008 passed by the Judge, Court of Small Causes, Kanpur Nagar by which SCC Suit No.177 of 1987 filed by the landlord-respondent for decree of eviction as the petitioners-tenants had not paid rent from 1st January, 1981 upto 30th November, 1986, was decreed. The petitioners have also sought the quashing of the order dated 20th August, 2011 by which the Revision filed by the petitioners under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887 (hereinafter referred to as the 1887 Act') for setting aside the aforesaid order was dismissed. The landlord had filed the suit with the allegation that as arrears of rent amounting to Rs.3596/- from 1st January, 1981 to 30th November, 1986 had accumulated and despite notice for demand and ejectment served upon the tenants, rent of Rs.116/- was only paid. The relief for decree of ejectment and for payment of rent was, accordingly, claimed. The Court of Small Causes found that the notice of termination of tenancy was served upon the tenants but despite service of notice, the tenants paid only two months' rent instead of paying the entire arrears of rent from 1st January, 1981. The Court of Small Causes also found that the benefit of Section 20(4) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the 1972 Act') could not be given to the petitioners as they did not deposit the entire amount of rent and damages together with interest thereon on the first date of hearing of the suit. The Revisional Court also confirmed these findings. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that there was no default in payment of rent as once the landlord had accepted Rs.116/- sent by money order without raising any objection, it should be deemed that there was no arrears of rent. He further submitted that Mahesh Chandra-D.W.-1 in his statement clearly stated that rent had been paid till the death of his mother and the receipts were also given to his mother and, therefore, it cannot be said that rent had not been paid. It is not possible to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners. He further submitted that Mahesh Chandra-D.W.-1 in his statement clearly stated that rent had been paid till the death of his mother and the receipts were also given to his mother and, therefore, it cannot be said that rent had not been paid. It is not possible to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners. The tenants had failed to produce any evidence that rent had been paid particularly when the tenants had filed the last rent receipt dated 10th October, 1981 by which rent from 1st September, 1981 to 30th October, 1986 had been paid. If receipts had been given to the mother of Mahesh Chandra till her death, then it was for the tenant to have filed the said receipts but that was not done. The Courts below have recorded a categorical finding of fact that the rent had not been paid and nothing has been brought on record to substantiate that the findings are perverse. The Courts below have also recorded a categorical finding of fact that benefit under Section 20(4) of the 1972 Act cannot be given to the petitioners. It is, therefore, not possible to interfere with the impugned orders. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.