Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 776 (ALL)

T. N. Bhargav v. Rajeev Sareen

2011-03-28

RAKESH TIWARI

body2011
JUDGMENT Heard counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. 2. Petitioner tenant has filed this petition challenging the validity and correctness of the judgment and order dated 19.1.2008 passed by Judge, Small Causes Court, Meerut in case no. 30 of 1984 as well as judgment and order dated 18.11.2010 passed in Civil Revision No. 10 of 2008 and 15 of 2008, appended as annexure no. 7 and 21 respectively to the writ petition. 3. The respondent landlord instituted SCC case no. 30 of 1984, for arrears of rent and sewer tax as well as eviction of the petitioner from the shop in dispute on the ground that petitioner was the tenant of the shop in question at the rate of Rs. 500/- per month plus sewer tax; that he had paid rent upto January 1984 but has not paid sewer tax; that the accommodation in question is a new construction, to which provisions of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 do not apply and that a notice dated 13.3.1984 under section 106 of Transfer of Property Act was given to the tenant terminating his tenancy which was received by him on 15.3.1984 but after expiry of thirty days, he neither delivered possession of the shop in question nor paid the charges of sewer tax. The petitioner tenant contested the case by filing written statement. 4. The trial court after evidence and pleadings of the parties, came to the conclusion that plaintiffs are a joint Hindu family and relationship of tenant and landlord exists between the parties; that provisions of U.P. Act no. 13 of `1972 do not apply to the property in question; that notice under section 106 of Transfer of Property Act is valid by which tenancy of the petitioner stands terminated; that tenant is not entitled to get benefits under section 114 of Transfer of Property Act and that tenant is liable to pay sewer tax and claim of the sewer tax is not barred by time. With the aforesaid findings, the trial court decreed the suit by the impugned judgment and order dated 19.1.2008, directing the tenant petitioner to hand over possession of the accommodation in question to the landlord within thirty days from the date of the order. 5. SCC revision no. 10 of 2008 filed by the petitioner has also been dismissed by Additional District Judge, court no. 5. SCC revision no. 10 of 2008 filed by the petitioner has also been dismissed by Additional District Judge, court no. 7, Meerut affirming the findings recorded by the trial court. 6. Referring to annexure no. 22 to the writ petition which is said to be Amin Report , counsel for the petitioner submits that respondent landlord is not interested in the matter and not coming forward to take possession of the shop in question. No other point has been argued by him. 7. After perusing the orders impugned and hearing the submissions made by the counsel for petitioner, it is apparent that landlord respondents are joint Hindu family and that petitioner is a defaulter in payment of rent. The receipt of rent can be issued by the Karta or any member of the joint Hindu family on his instructions. The family member of the landlords have not denied execution of rent receipts. 8. The argument of the counsel for petitioner that the landlords are not taking possession of the shop in question though they have been offered possession, appears to be illogical and the Amin's report appears to be manipulated one, for the reason that if this would have been the case, the landlords would not have instituted the suit for eviction of the petitioner and contested the revision for possession which have been decided in their favour nor the petitioner would have filed this petition for quashing of the order dated 18.11.2010 passed in Civil Revision No. 10 of 2008 and 15 of 2008 as well as the order dated 19.1.2008 passed by JSCC in case no. 30 of 1984, Rajeev Sareen Vs. T.N. Bhargav or even would have prayed for stay of the aforesaid orders. 9. Tenancy of the petitioner has been terminated by valid notice under section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. Counsel for the petitioner has not been able to show any illegality or infirmity in the orders impugned. There being concurrent findings of fact recorded against the petitioner, no case of interference is made out in exercise of extraordinary powers under Art. 226 of the Constitution. 10. For all the reasons stated above, the writ petition has no force and is accordingly dismissed. The petitioner shall handover possession of the accommodation in question to the landlord within a period of one month from today. No order as to costs.