Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 1879 (ALL)

Ravindra Nath Gupta v. Kishna Agarwal

2013-07-18

SUDHIR KUMAR SAXENA

body2013
JUDGMENT Sudhir Kumar Saxena,J. This revision under Section 25 of S.C.C. Act is directed against the decree dated 03.01.2012 passed by Small Causes Court/Additional District Judge, court no. 4, Hardoi in S.C. Case No. 1/08, dismissing the suit for eviction. 2. It appears that a Suit had been filed by the plaintiff alleging that defendant Sri Krishna Agarwal is tenant in the shop in dispute @ Rs. 1000/- per month. Plaintiff had given a notice under Section 106/111 T.P. Act to tenant on 02.02.2008 which was served on the same day. Neither tenant paid the arrears of land nor vacated the shop which led to cause of action. 3. Defendant in his written statement admitted plaintiff as landlord and himself as tenant of the shop. Tenant denied rest allegations. Defence case was that the tenancy was at the rate of Rs. 450/- per month and at this rate rent has been deposited before Civil Judge (J.D.) under Section 30 of U.P. Act no. 13 of 1972. Moreover, he has deposited the entire rent, interest etc. under Section 20(4) of the Act. Defendant had filed a Civil Suit earlier being Civil Suit No. 260 of 2005 before Civil Judge (J.D.) against landlord which was decreed on 16.04.2010 and plaintiff was restrained from evicting the tenant except in accordance with law. 4. Petition under Section 21 of the Act is also pending. Court framed four points for determination. First issue is whether defendant was tenant @ Rs. 1000/- per month. Issue regarding compliance of Section 20(4) of the Act was also framed. 5. Trial court came to conclusion that rate of tenancy was Rs. 450/-per month and defendant has deposited the entire rent. Court came to conclusion that Suit for eviction cannot be decreed. 6. Learned counsel Sri A.K. Gupta submits that rate of rent i.e. Rs. 1000/- has been wrongly decided on the basis of earlier judgment of Civil court passed in Regular Suit No. 260 of 2005.In the said Suit categorical finding has been recorded that rate of rent was Rs. 450/- per month. This judgment has not been appealed against admits learned counsel; as such finding given in regular Suit is binding upon the Small Cause Court. Consequently, I find no error in the finding in respect to the rate of rent. 7. 450/- per month. This judgment has not been appealed against admits learned counsel; as such finding given in regular Suit is binding upon the Small Cause Court. Consequently, I find no error in the finding in respect to the rate of rent. 7. So far as next submission that compliance of Section 20(4) of the Act has not been made is concerned, it is apparent from the judgment that entire amount payable by the tenant @ Rs. 1000/- per month was deposited in order to save the eviction. Court below has mentioned in the judgment that amount deposited under Section 20(4) of the Act was sufficient. Nothing on record is available to dispute this finding. 8. Consequently, judgment and decree is in accordance with law. Revision is dismissed.