Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1389 (ALL)

Magan Bihari Kapoor v. III-A. D. J. , Etah

2014-04-29

SUDHIR AGARWAL

body2014
JUDGMENT Sudhir Agarwal, J. 1. This is an application seeking condonation of delay in filing the restoration application. 2. Heard. 3. Cause shown for delay in filing restoration application is sufficient. 4. Delay in filing restoration application is condoned. 5. This application, accordingly, stands allowed. Sudhir Agarwal, J. 1. Heard Sri Namit Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioners-applicants and Sri Rahul Jain, learned counsel for the respondent. 2. This is an application for recall of order dated 28.5.2009 passed by this Court dismissing the writ petition for want of prosecution. 3. Reason shown for non appearance have been explained satisfactorily. The application is allowed. Order dated 28.5.2009 is hereby recalled. Sudhir Agarwal,J. 1. Order dated 28.5.2009 having been recalled vide order of date passed on restoration application, the writ petition is restored to its original number. As requested by learned counsels for parties, I proceed to hear and decide this matter finally at this stage under the Rules of the Court. 2. Heard Sri Namit Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Rahul Jain, learned counsel for the respondent-tenant. 3. The petitioners are landlord. They instituted SCC Suit No. 20 of 1993 for eviction of respondent-tenant on the ground of default in payment of rent. Trial Court decided issue no.3 holding that though, on the date, when suit was instituted, defendant-respondent was liable for payment of rent from September, 1990 to April, 1993 but it appears that entire rent has been paid and nothing is due. Again, proceeding to decide issue no.5 with regard to benefit of Section 20(4) of Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as "Act, 1972"), Trial Court found that though other dues etc. have been paid but interest @ 1.5% p.m. has not been deposited by tenant and, therefore, he was not entitled for benefit under Section 20(4) of Act, 1972. This findings recorded in respect to issue no.5 has been reversed by Revisional Court observing that there was no agreement between the parties requiring tenant to pay interest and, therefore, when rent was paid, non payment of interest would not disentitle tenant for the benefit under Section 20(4) of Act, 1972. 4. Counsel for the petitioner could not show any illegality or perversity in the findings recorded by Revisional Court warranting interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 5. Dismissed. 6. 4. Counsel for the petitioner could not show any illegality or perversity in the findings recorded by Revisional Court warranting interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 5. Dismissed. 6. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.