Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 769 (ALL)

Mahendra Kumar v. Santo and others

2012-03-29

SHASHI KANT GUPTA

body2012
Shashi Kant Gupta, J.;- 1. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 15.12.2011 passed by Additional District Judge, Room No. 20, Kanpur Nagar in S.C.C. Revision No. 01 of 2011 upholding the order dated 14.12.2010 passed by S.C.C. Court, Kanpur Nagar in S.C.C. Case No. 105 of 2011, whereby the suit filed by the respondents-landlord for arrears of rent and ejectment against the petitioner has been decreed. Brief facts of the case as set out in the writ petition are as follows:- 2. A suit for arrears of rent and ejectment was filed by the respondents-landlord against the petitioner clearly stating that the petitioner has committed default in payment of rent. The petitioner filed his written statement disputing and denying the averments made by the landlord. The Trial Court after hearing the pleadings and perusing the evidence available on record decreed the suit in favour of the respondents-landlord. 3. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said order, the petitioner filed a S.C.C. Revision, which was registered as S.C.C. Revision No. 01 of 2011. The said revision was dismissed by judgement and order dated 15.12.2011. Hence the present writ petition. 4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. 5. The only point raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the Court below has erred in holding that the deposit of rent by the petitioner under Section 30 of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 (in short the "Act") is invalid. It has not been disputed that the alleged deposit of rent made by the petitioner under Section 30 of the Act was after more than one and half year from the date of the receipt of the notice under Section 106 of the T.P. Act. A perusal of the record shows that the contention of the petitioner that he tried to tender rent to the landlord was refused by him, has been disbelieved by the court. The deposit of rent under section 30 of the Act was made after about one and half year from the date of the receipt of notice under section 106 of T.P. Act, and therefore, the court below has rightly held that the deposit of rent was not valid. 6. This court in the case of Prakash Chandra Gupta Vs. The deposit of rent under section 30 of the Act was made after about one and half year from the date of the receipt of notice under section 106 of T.P. Act, and therefore, the court below has rightly held that the deposit of rent was not valid. 6. This court in the case of Prakash Chandra Gupta Vs. Sobran Singh, 2006 (3) ARC, 83 has held as follows: "From the above it is clear that the only question that was left for the trial court was to examine the notice that was deemed to have been served on the tenant to find if it could be read as one Under Section 30(1) of the Act and if it was not so then in absence of such finding refusal to adjust deposit made by the tenant cannot be sustained. To put it differently the purport and import of the earlier judgment of this Court is that if it is found, as a fact that in the notice, the landlord had signified his willingness to accept the rent, amount deposited Under Section 30(1) of the Act, would not be valid and consequently the tenant would not be entitled to adjust the amount deposited Under Section 20(4) of the Act. If it is otherwise and the landlord has not expressed his willingness in the notice to accept the rent the deposit Under Section 30(1) of the Act by the tenant, is valid and consequently he would be entitled to adjust the amount, thus deposited Under Section 30(1) of the Act to claim benefit of Section 20(4) of the Act. With regard to the above there is substance in the argument of learned Counsel for the plaintiff-landlord that the question of validity of service of notice was not left open to be re-decided and thus the trial court exceeded in its jurisdiction while re-deciding the said issue. " 7. Reasons mentioned in the impugned orders are good enough to satisfy the impugned orders and no fault can be found with the approach adopted by the courts below. 8. In view of what has been discussed, herein above, I do not find any illegality, infirmity or perversity in the impugned orders which may warrant any interference. 9. No other point has been pressed by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 10. In the result, the writ petition fails and is dismissed. 11. 8. In view of what has been discussed, herein above, I do not find any illegality, infirmity or perversity in the impugned orders which may warrant any interference. 9. No other point has been pressed by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 10. In the result, the writ petition fails and is dismissed. 11. After the judgment was dictated, learned counsel for the petitioner urged that at least six months time may be granted to him for vacating the premises in question. 12. As urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner, six 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 without inducting any third person within a period of six months from today and will pay the entire arrears of rent including the current rent at the rate payable upto the date of delivery of the vacant possession of the disputed premises within one month from today. 13. In the event of default of any of the aforesaid conditions, the landlord will be at liberty to proceed to evict the petitioner, if necessary by coercive process with the aid of police force.