Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1666 (ALL)

Mata Prasad v. Mohammad Rafiq

2014-05-21

SUDHIR AGARWAL

body2014
JUDGMENT Sudhir Agarwal, J. Writ petition has been restored to its original number vide order of date passed on recall application. As requested by learned counsel for the parties, the same is taken up for hearing and is being disposed of finally. 2. Heard Sri R.K. Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. 3. The petitioner is a landlord and instituted SCC Suit No. 02 of 1994 seeking eviction of respondents-tenants from accommodation in question on the ground of default in payment of rent since December, 1990. 4. The Trial Court noticed that initially landlord raised a dispute regarding rate of rent and he claimed that rent was Rs. 50/- per month but this dispute was settled in Original Suit No. 157 of 1993, decided on 29.04.1994 in which rate of rent of shop in dispute was adjudicated as Rs. 40/- per month and that suit between the parties was held to be final on this aspect. Therefore, rate of rent as claimed by landlord at Rs. 50/- per month was not found correct. The Trial Court also noticed that rent was deposited by tenants under Section 30 ofU.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act, 1972") and on the date when suit was filed or when notice was given by landlord on 26.10.1993, there was no such default yet the Trial Court holding that there was delay in deposit of rent, decreed suit vide judgment dated 15.04.1997 but this judgment of Trial Court was reversed by Revisional Court vide judgment dated 15.12.1999 holding that once rent has been deposited by tenant, decree of eviction could not have been passed since tenant was not in default. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner could not point out any error in the judgment impugned in this writ petition but he submitted that tenants, in the meantime, have got another accommodation and, therefore, accommodation in question should be released in favour of landlord. 6. The submission is thoroughly misconceived since here is not a dispute under Section 21(1)(a) of Act, 1972 but the suit has been filed under Section 20 and the same was dismissed. That being so, petitioner is not entitled for any relief. 7. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.