Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 1415 (ALL)

Preeti Dwivedi v. Aruna Malviay

2013-05-13

ABHINAVA UPADHYA

body2013
JUDGMENT Abhinava Upadhya,J. Heard learned counsel for the parties. By means of this revision the revisionist has challenged the judgment of the S.C.C. Judge (Small Causes) dated 8.4.2012 passed in S.C.C. Suit No. 29 of 2005 (Smt. Aruna Malviya Vs. Preeti Dwivedi) filed for eviction and arrears of rent in respect of House No. 31 Chandra Vihar, Lakhanpur, Kanpur. 2. It is not disputed that the revisionist is tenant in the said property. The claim of the revisionist is that the Rent Control Act applies as the rent is only Rs. 1,500/- per month whereas the court below has held it to be Rs. 5,000/- on the basis of three rent notes filed by the plaintiff indicating Rs. 5,000/- rent and signed by the defendant as well as her husband. The court below has recorded a categorical finding that the rent of the house was Rs. 5,000/- and has held that the revisionist was in arrears of rent and liable to be evicted. The court below has determined Rs. 300/- per day as mesne profit and directed Rs. 73,000/- as arrears of rent. 3. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the revisionist and gone through the pleadings. The finding recorded by the court below that the rent is Rs. 5,000/- cannot be faulted upon the reasons given in the order. On the other hand the revisionist claims that the rent of Rs. 1,500/- is based on a notice by the lawyer of the landlord to the revisionist, requiring the tenant to pay arrears of rent @ Rs. 1,500/- per month. The aforesaid document has not been proved by the defendant and the plaintiff has denied the said document. On the other hand the court below had relied on the rent notes executed and signed by the parties wherein the rent was shown as Rs. 5,000/- per month. There is no material to disbelieve the aforesaid finding recorded by the court below. Hence, the Rent Control Act i.e. Act No. 13 of 1972 cannot be said to be applicable. The present issues in dispute are covered by the provisions of Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act for which due and proper notice has already been given as has been determined by the court below. 4. Under the circumstances, no error could be pointed out for interference of this Court in revisional jurisdiction. 5. The present issues in dispute are covered by the provisions of Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act for which due and proper notice has already been given as has been determined by the court below. 4. Under the circumstances, no error could be pointed out for interference of this Court in revisional jurisdiction. 5. Learned counsel for the revisionist, however, submits that he may be allowed sometime to vacate the premise. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances, the revisionist is allowed six months further time to vacate the premises and hand over the peaceful possession to the plaintiff-respondent. 7. According to the learned counsel for the revisionist arrears of rent @ Rs. 1,500/- per month has already been paid whereas the determination of the court below is Rs. 5,000/- per month + Rs. 300/- per day as mesne profit. 8. It is further directed that the revisionist shall pay the entire amount along with mesne profit as directed by the court below within two months from the date of this order after deducting the amount which has already been paid. Parties shall file an application before the court below for appropriate orders pursuant to the orders passed by this Court. 9. The revision has no merit and is, accordingly, dismissed subject to the direction given above.