Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 2697 (ALL)

Rajesh Sinha v. Sangam Educational Society

2013-10-29

RAN VIJAI SINGH

body2013
JUDGMENT Ran Vijai Singh, J. Heard Sri Shashi Nandan, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri A.S.Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Ram Dayal along with Sri Ram Dular, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 2. The submission of learned Senior Counsel is that the courts below have erred in treating the building to be exempted from the operation of the U.P.Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 ( in short 'the Act'). In his submissions, the requirement as contained under Section 2 (f) of the Act for exempting the building from the operation of the Act were not satisfied as the building in question was purchased by the Society in the year 2001 whereas the petitioner happens to be sitting tenant since 1941. It is also contended that the petitioner is neither an employee nor connected with any activity of the Society. It is also contented by learned Senior Counsel that the notice intimating the petitioner that the building in question has been purchased by the Society was served to the petitioner with the demand to pay the arrears of rent on 21st June, 2010 and the erstwhile landlord, vide notice dated 4.10.2010, has intimated to pay the rent to the subsequent purchaser (the present petitioner) henceforth. In his submissions, in view of Section 109 of Transfer of Property Act, the rent prior to the date of notice could not be demanded. 3. Refuting the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Atul Dayal, learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that assuming the building is not exempted from the purview of the Act even then there was a default of four months and the petitioner has not deposited any rent after receipt of the notice.He has also contended that the provisions of Section 2 (f) of the Act has been misinterpreted by the learned Senior Counsel. In his submissions, if the building has been purchased by the Society for its own occupation then it will be treated to be built and occupied by the Society. Matter requires scrutiny. 4. Issue notice. 5. Sri Ram Dular has filed caveat on behalf of the respondent no. 1, therefore notice need not be served again to the respondent no. 1. The respondent no. 4 is erstwhile landlord, therefore no notice is required to be issued to respondent no. 4. 6. Issue notice to the respondents no. Matter requires scrutiny. 4. Issue notice. 5. Sri Ram Dular has filed caveat on behalf of the respondent no. 1, therefore notice need not be served again to the respondent no. 1. The respondent no. 4 is erstwhile landlord, therefore no notice is required to be issued to respondent no. 4. 6. Issue notice to the respondents no. 2 and 3 through registered post returnable at an early date. 7. Steps be taken within two weeks. 8. As an interim measure without prejudice to the right and contention of the parties, subject to further order passed by this Court, the eviction of the petitioner from the accommodation in dispute shall remain stayed provided the petitioner deposits Rs. 6000/- per month towards damages for use and occupation of the accommodation in dispute. The damages of October shall be deposited by 12th November and thereafter the petitioner shall continue to deposit the same amount by 7th day of each succeeding month. In case of default, interim order granted today shall stand automatically vacated. The amount so deposited may be withdrawn by the respondent landlord.