Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 103 (UTT)

DEEPAK KUMAR v. RAGHUBIR SINGH

2013-03-06

B.S.Verma

body2013
JUDGMENT Hon’ble B.S. Verma, J. (Oral) Heard Ms. Anjali Noliyal, Advocate for the revisionist and Sri Bhupesh Kandpal, Advocate for the respondents. 2. This civil revision is directed against the judgment ad decree dated 11.2.2013 passed by 1st Addl. District Judge, Dehradun in SCC Suit No. 4/1999, Raghubir Singh Vs. Deepak Kumar, whereby the suit of the plaintiff was decreed for eviction and it was directed that the defendant shall hand over the possession of the disputed property to the plaintiff within 1½ months and he will also pay Rs. 550/- as damages to the plaintiff. 3. The facts of the case in short are that the plaintiff had leased out shop No. 706-D situated in Dakra Bazar Dehradun in favour of defendant on a monthly rent of Rs. 550/- for the period 30-9-94 to 30-9-98. According to plaintiff the defendant did not vacate the shop after expiry of lease period and he has paid the rent upto 30-9-1998. The plaintiff served notice to the defendant but the defendant did not reply to it hence plaintiff filed the suit. During the pendency of suit Raghubir Singh had died and his legal heirs were substituted . 4. The defendant filed written statement and admitted the rent of shop. He also admitted his occupation over the shop since 1.10.1989. He alleged that the plaintiff has already two shops in his possession in one shop he carries on the business of cosmetic and in another shop his son sells vegetables. He has paid the rent regularly and the landlord has no bonafide need of shop in dispute. 5. The learned trial court framed necessary issues. 6. Both the parties adduced oral as well as documentary evidence in support of their contentions. The trial court after hearing the parties it has been held that the tenancy was monthwise and the notice was sent to the tenant and after sufficient service of notice no reply was sent by the tenant and the tenancy had been determined by the said notice. The trial court also recorded a finding that the tenancy had been paying the rent regularly and a sum of Rs. 550/- as expenses of notice is due against him and his tenancy had been terminated by the notice dated 11.12.1998. 7. Feeling aggrieved the revisionist has preferred this revision. 8. The trial court also recorded a finding that the tenancy had been paying the rent regularly and a sum of Rs. 550/- as expenses of notice is due against him and his tenancy had been terminated by the notice dated 11.12.1998. 7. Feeling aggrieved the revisionist has preferred this revision. 8. The learned trial court has given a specific finding that the tenant was not defaulter in payment of rent. The tenancy was monthwise. The shop in question was given on rent to the defendant for a fixed period 30.9.1994 to 30.9.1998 and the period of lease had not been enhanced by executing another lease and the tenant had to hand over the possession of the shop to the land lord after the expiry of lease deed i.e. 30.9.98, but he failed to do so and the land lord sent notice to the defendant and the notice returned back undelivered. The service of notice was presumed sufficient by refusal but the defendant did not send any reply to notice therefore his tenancy was determined by the notice. I do not find any infirmity or manifest error of in the finding recorded by the trial court. The tenancy was for a fixed period and after expiry of date of agreement the defendant was obliged to handover the possession of shop to the plaintiff but he failed to do so and the landlord had determined his tenancy by serving notice upon the defendant. 9. The plaintiff has also taken specific plea in para No.2 of the plaint that the shop in dispute is exempted from operation of Rent Control Act. In reply to para No.2 the landlord in the W.S. has not made specific denial of the fact that the Act No.13 of 1972 is not applicable to the shop in question. Although no issue was framed and no finding has come on this issue, but the pleading of plaintiff remains uncontroverted therefore the provisions of Act No. 13 of 1972 are not applicable to the property in dispute. 10. The revision petition lacks merit and is dismissed. 11. Although no issue was framed and no finding has come on this issue, but the pleading of plaintiff remains uncontroverted therefore the provisions of Act No. 13 of 1972 are not applicable to the property in dispute. 10. The revision petition lacks merit and is dismissed. 11. However, to do complete justice, one years’ time is allowed to the petitioner/tenant to vacate the shop in question provided he gives undertaking to this effect before the trial court concerned, that he will handover the peaceful possession of the shop in question to the landlord and shall pay the decretal amount within a period of three months and shall continue to pay agreed rent of the shop in question.