Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 3025 (ALL)

Yogesh Kumar v. Ravinder Sharma

2013-12-12

RAN VIJAI SINGH

body2013
JUDGMENT Ran Vijai Singh, J. Heard Sri K.K.Arora, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Chetan Chaterjee, learned counsel for the respondent. 2. While assailing the impugned order? Sri K.K.Arora, learned counsel for the petitioners contended that both the courts below have erred? in not taking into consideration the affidavits filed by the tenants and only need of the land lord has been taken into consideration.? He further submits that since the accommodation in question is a business accommodation and the judgment has been rendered by both the courts below without giving regard to Rule 16(2) of U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent & Eviction) Rules, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules).?? Sri Chetan Chaterjee, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that it cannot be said that no regard has been given to Rule 16(2) of the Rules as while allowing the release application a direction has been issued to the landlord to pay two years rent to the respondent. 3. Matter requires scrutiny. 4. Issue notice. 5. Sri Chaten Chatterjee has filed caveat on behalf of the respondent, therefore, notice need not be sent again. 6. Learned counsel for the respondent prays for and is granted one week's time to file counter affidavit. Rejoinder affidavit, if any, be filed within two weeks thereafter.? List thereafter. 7. As an interim measure without prejudice to the rights and contention of the parties, subject to deposit of Rs. 2,000/- per month towards rent? before the Prescribed Authority, the eviction of the petitioners from the accommodation in dispute shall remain stayed. The rent has been enhanced keeping in mind the location of the shop near civil court in the city of Saharanpur and the law laid down by the Apex Court in Atma Ram Properties (P) Ltd. Vs. Federal Motors (P) Ltd.- (2005) 1 SCC 705 , as well as by? this Court in? Ganga Prasad Vs. M/s. Hanif Opticians 2005 (2) ARC 723 , Rajeshwari (Smt.) Vs. Smt. Prema Agarwal, 2005(1) ARC-526, Hari Mohan Kichlu Vs. VIIIth A.D.J. Muzaffarnagar and others, 2004 (2) ARC-652; Khurshida Vs. A.D.J. 2004(2) ARC-64 =2004(54) ALR-177,? Smt. Zohra Vs. IVth A.D.J. Jhansi 2006(63) ALR 643. The enhanced monthly rent for the month of December, 2013 shall be deposited by the petitioners by 7th January, 2014 and likewise on or before 7th day of each succeeding months the same amount shall be deposited. A.D.J. 2004(2) ARC-64 =2004(54) ALR-177,? Smt. Zohra Vs. IVth A.D.J. Jhansi 2006(63) ALR 643. The enhanced monthly rent for the month of December, 2013 shall be deposited by the petitioners by 7th January, 2014 and likewise on or before 7th day of each succeeding months the same amount shall be deposited. The amount of rent so deposited may be withdrawn by the land lord.? In case of default in paying the rent by the petitioners the interim order shall stand automatically vacated.