Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 920 (ALL)

Hiraman Prasad v. Zohra Bin Islam

2012-04-16

SHASHI KANT GUPTA

body2012
Shashi Kant Gupta, J.— 1. This writ petition has been filed against the order dated 27.2.2012 passed by the Additional District Judge, Allahabad in Civil Revision No. 10 of 2008 (Hiraman Prasad Vs. Zoha Bin Islam) upholding the order dated 13.12.2007 passed by the Judge, Small Causes Court, Allahabad in Suit No. 122 of 2002 whereby the suit of the plaintiff-Respondent No. 1 (in short "landlord") filed for arrears of rent and ejectement was decreed. 2. A suit for arrears of rent and ejectement was filed by the landlord. The trial court after perusing the pleadings, oral and documentary evidence on record decreed the suit by order dated 13.12.2007. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said order, the petitioner filed a civil revision which was dismissed. Hence the present writ petition. 3. The only contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the Court below has committed illegality in not giving the benefit of Section 20 (4) of the UP Act No. 13 of 1972 (in short "Act") in spite of the fact that the entire amount as contemplated under Section 20 (4) of the Act was deposited. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-landlord has supported the impugned orders passed by the courts below and has submitted that the petitioner did not deposit the entire amount as provided under Section 20 (4) of the Act, as such, the courts below were fully justified in decreeing the suit in favour of the landlord. Learned counsel for the respondent-landlord further submitted that the petitioner himself in his oral testimony has stated that while depositing the amount under Section 20 (4), he did not deposit the interest on the rent/damages as provided under Section 20 (4) of the Act for use and occupation of the building in question. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 6. The existence of relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties has not been denied. The court below has held that the rate of rent was Rs. 200/- per month. The record shows that the petitioner deposited Rs. 12,800/- on 19.12.2002 under Section 20 (4) of the Act. The courts below have recorded a finding of fact that the petitioner was liable to deposit Rs. 13,812.50 paise under Section 20 (4) of the Act but only Rs. 200/- per month. The record shows that the petitioner deposited Rs. 12,800/- on 19.12.2002 under Section 20 (4) of the Act. The courts below have recorded a finding of fact that the petitioner was liable to deposit Rs. 13,812.50 paise under Section 20 (4) of the Act but only Rs. 12,800/- was deposited by the petitioner, as such, the entire amount of rent and damages for use and occupation of the building in question together with interest thereon and the cost of the suit was not deposited. Therefore, there was a shortfall of Rs. 1012.50 paise in the deposit under Section 20 (4) of the Act. More so, the petitioner himself in his oral testimony has admitted that the amount of interest as contemplated under Section 20 (4) of the Act, was not deposited. Thus, in view of the above, the courts below was fully justified in not giving the benefit of Section 20 (4) of the Act to the petitioner. 7. The court below has given cogent, convincing and satisfactory reasons while decreeing the suit of the landlord against the petitioner. The findings recorded by the courts below are neither perverse nor based on any extraneous or irrelevant material. The courts below have on meticulous evaluation of evidence held the petitioner was in arrears of rent and was liable to be evicted. The findings recorded by the courts below are based on material on record and this Court, while exercising its power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, can not substitute its opinion for the opinion of the courts below unless it is found that the conclusion drawn by the courts below is manifestly illegal and perverse. 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. In the result, the writ petition fails and is dismissed. 10. Lastly, learned counsel for the petitioner urged that at least six months' time may be granted to the petitioner for vacating the premises in dispute so that in the meantime he may be able to search out some other suitable accommodation. The learned counsel for the respondent-landlord did not raise any objection to it. 11. 10. Lastly, learned counsel for the petitioner urged that at least six months' time may be granted to the petitioner for vacating the premises in dispute so that in the meantime he may be able to search out some other suitable accommodation. The learned counsel for the respondent-landlord did not raise any objection to it. 11. As urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner, six months' time is granted to the petitioner to vacate the premises in dispute provided he 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 respondent-landlord without inducting any third person within a period of six months from today and will pay the entire decretal amount including the damages within ten weeks from today before the trial court. It is further provided that the petitioner shall deposit Rs. 500/- per month as rent/ damages w.e.f. April 2012 for use and occupation of the disputed premises by 7th of each succeeding month before the trial court for immediate payment to the landlord. 12. In case of default in compliance of the aforementioned conditions, the stay order shall stand automatically vacated and the respondent-landlord will be at liberty to evict the petitioner with the aid of the police force. _____________