Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 2714 (ALL)

Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd v. Bachchu Singh

2013-10-30

VISHNU CHANDRA GUPTA

body2013
JUDGMENT Vishnu Chandra Gupta, J. Heard learned counsel Sri K.N. Mishra for the revisionist and Sri Jyotish Awasthi, learned counsel for the opposite parties. 2. By means of this revision under Section 25 of Provincial Small Causes Courts Act, the revisionist has challenged the judgment and decree dated 21.03.2009 passed by Additional District Judge/Judge Small Causes Court, Mathura whereby the decree of ejectment from the tenanted premises and the decree for arrears of rent and damages for the use of occupation at the rate of 3200/- per month has been passed against Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, the revisionist. 3. Admittedly, it is not in dispute that there was a relationship between landlord and tenant and the provisions of U.P. Act No.13 of 1972 is not applicable in respect of the premises in question. 4. It has been contended on behalf of learned counsel for the revisionist that the agreement arrived at between the parties is unregistered, hence it cannot be taken into consideration and as such the decree passed after taking into consideration the same cannot be allowed to sustain. 5. On the contrary, it has been submitted on behalf of opposite parties after relying upon the judgment of Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Manish Anand Vs. Ramniwas Gupta, AIR 2012 Madhya Pradesh 90, that moreover the document is not lease deed but an agreement defining the terms of tenancy as such is not required to be registered. The lease document is not before this Court so opinion in regard to document could not be expressed by this Court. It is well settled that even if, the deed is unregistered and if the landlord and tenant relationship is admitted and the provisions of U.P. Act No.13 is not applicable, certainly the tenancy would be month to month and terminable at the will of landlord. No illegality in the service of notice under Section 106 of Transfer of Property Act has been pointed out. The service of notice has not been disputed, hence the tenancy has been validly terminated. 6. I do not find any illegality and perversity in the impugned judgment and decree and, therefore, the revision petition is liable to be dismissed. 7. Learned counsel for the BSNL submits that BSNL may be granted some time to vacate the premises in order to shift certain machinery which had been installed in the premises. 8. 6. I do not find any illegality and perversity in the impugned judgment and decree and, therefore, the revision petition is liable to be dismissed. 7. Learned counsel for the BSNL submits that BSNL may be granted some time to vacate the premises in order to shift certain machinery which had been installed in the premises. 8. Considering the request of learned counsel for the BSNL and concurrence of extending time on behalf of landlord, six months time is granted subject to filing an undertaking within three weeks before the court below by the BSNL to vacate the premises within six months from the date of this order. BSNL shall also deposit the entire arrears of rent and damages for the use of occupation and costs of the landlord as contained in the decree within two months from today. In case of failure in compliance of this order, the landlord will be at liberty to proceed to evict and to recover the aforesaid amount from the BSNL through the process of execution in accordance with law. It is also directed that for the period of six months BSNL will pay the damages of occupation at the rate of Rs.6000/- per month. 9. With the aforesaid observations, the revision petition is dismissed.