Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 2077 (ALL)

Anwar v. Niwas

2013-08-08

SANJAY MISRA

body2013
JUDGMENT Sanjay Misra,J. Heard Sri S.F.A.Naqvi, learned counsel for the revisionist and Sri S.S.Sharma, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the sole plaintiff opposite party. 2. This revision has been filed under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Causes Courts Act. Learned counsel for the revisionist has submitted that earlier the revisionist was tenant of a shop on monthly rent of Rs. 60/- and the plaintiff opposite party had preferred a petition under Section 21 of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 for release of the said shop, which was registered as P.A. Case No. 81 of 1990. The said case was allowed on 11.01.1994 the appeal was dismissed and the writ petition filed by the revisionist was disposed of. However, in the writ petition by the order dated 21.08.2003 the respondent landlord was required to let out to the revisionist the shop at schedule B and the revisionist came in possession of the said shop at schedule B. 3. Learned counsel for the revisionist states that the rent of the new shop was not fixed and hence the matter was agitated and ultimately the Prescribed Authority, Mathura fixed the rent of this shop @ Rs. 640/- per month vide its order dated 25.03.2008 and the writ petition filed there against was also dismissed, hence the admitted rent is Rs. 640/- per month. 4. Learned counsel states that subsequently the plaintiff respondent filed the instant Small Causes Suit No. 12 of 2008 (Sri Niwas Vs. Anwar) before the Special Judge/Additional District Judge, Mathura on the ground of default in payment of rent and hence for eviction from the said shop. According to him, the revisionist deposited the rent @ Rs. 640/- per month which was fixed on 25.03.2008 by the Prescribed Authority on 04.03.2011 and hence it cannot be held that the revisionist was in default at all. Under such circumstance, Sri Naqvi, learned counsel for the revisionist states that the impugned order for recovery of rent and arrears and eviction of the revisionist be set aside. 5. Sri. S.S.Sharma, learned counsel for the plaintiff respondent has pointed out to the Issue no.1 and Issue no. 8 decided by the court below. He states that on Issue No. 1 it was held that the monthly rent of this new shop is Rs. 5. Sri. S.S.Sharma, learned counsel for the plaintiff respondent has pointed out to the Issue no.1 and Issue no. 8 decided by the court below. He states that on Issue No. 1 it was held that the monthly rent of this new shop is Rs. 640/- and the said decision was given by the Prescribed Authority on 25.03.2008 but the revisionist tenant failed to deposit the same within time. He refers to the finding on Issue No. 8 to state that the benefit of Section 20 (4) of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 could not be given to the revisionist for the reason that he had filed written submission on 07.02.2009, issues were framed on 09.02.2009, the plaintiff evidence was closed on 15.5.2009 and the defendant filed his evidence on 07.08.2009 and closed on 09.02.2010. The matter was then posted for final hearing. He states that deposit was made by tender Paper No. 74 C-2 on 04.03.2011 which was not on the first date of hearing. 6. Having considered the submission of learned counsel for the parties and perused the record, insofar as the monthly rent decided under Issue No. 1 is concerned, the claim of the respondent landlord was @ Rs. 800/- per month alongwith recovery of arrears of rent. The Court below has answered the Issue No. 1 and found that the rent @ Rs. 640/- per month was fixed by order dated 25.03.2008, where after the instant suit was filed when the revisionist failed to comply with the notice. The court below has recorded its finding on Issue No. 8 in the following manner: - "Issue No. 8 There is a tender, paper no. 74-C/2, showing deposit of Rs. 72,000/- on 04.03.2011. Though the deft has not claimed any protection of section u/s 20 (4) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 but protection being one provided by the statute, the court has an obligation to apply law to the facts. W.S. was filed by the deft on 07.02.2009, issues were framed on 09.02.2009, plaintiff closed his evidence on 15.05.2009, on 07.08.2009 deft filed evidence in chief, on 09.02.2010 deft closed his evidence and case was posted for arguments. W.S. was filed by the deft on 07.02.2009, issues were framed on 09.02.2009, plaintiff closed his evidence on 15.05.2009, on 07.08.2009 deft filed evidence in chief, on 09.02.2010 deft closed his evidence and case was posted for arguments. From the aforesaid matrix it is clear that 09.02.2009 when issues were framed, was the first date of hearing for the purpose of deposit under Section 20 (4) of the Act and 09.02.2010 when file came to be posted for arguments was the last date for hearing. The deposit of Rs. 72,000/- on 04.03.2011 was more than one year late even from the last date what to the first date of hearing. In these circumstances by no stretch of imagination protection of Section 20 (4) of the Act can be enlarged in favour of the deft." 7. From the aforesaid, it appears that the revisionist tenant has defaulted and has not taken benefit of the provisions of Section 20 (4) of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 and as such the finding recorded on Issue No. 8 by the Court below cannot be held to be illegal or erroneous. 8. Under such circumstances, no interference is required in the impugned order passed by the Judge, Small Causes Court, Mathura and this revision is liable to be dismissed. 9. At this stage learned counsel for the revisionist has submitted that the revisionist may be given some time to vacate the shop in question because it is his only source of livelihood. 10. Learned counsel for both the parties are agreed that a period of one year from today be granted to the revisionist to vacate the shop in question. 11. In view of the aforesaid submission and the agreement between learned counsel for the parties, this revision is disposed of by providing that (1) The tenant revisionist should deposit the entire decreetal amount alongwith mense profit as decreed per month with effect from 17.09.2008 up to 07.08.2014 within six weeks from today after giving adjustment of the amount if any already deposited. The amount so deposited may be withdrawn by the respondent landlord. (2) The tenant revisionist shall vacate the shop in question on or before 7th August, 2014 and handover vacant and peaceful possession to the plaintiff respondent landlord and not induct any third party in the premises in question. The amount so deposited may be withdrawn by the respondent landlord. (2) The tenant revisionist shall vacate the shop in question on or before 7th August, 2014 and handover vacant and peaceful possession to the plaintiff respondent landlord and not induct any third party in the premises in question. (3) The revisionist tenant shall give an undertaking to the above effect before the court below within six weeks from today. 12. In the event of default in any of the above three conditions, the revisionist shall not be entitled to continue in the shop in question as indicated above and shall be liable to be evicted forthwith. No order is passed as to costs.