Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 2067 (ALL)

Pramila Singh v. Vaibhav Garg

2014-07-14

PANKAJ MITHAL

body2014
JUDGMENT Pankaj Mithal,J. Head Sri K.K.Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Swapnil Kumar who has put in appearance on behalf of respondent no. 1. 2. The dispute in the present writ petition is about the property no. 5/5, situate in Mdia, Katra, Agra. The respondent no. 1 is said to have purchased it by registered sale deed dated 27.8.2001 from the previous owners. Petitioners are the tenant in the said property since the time of the previous owners. Respondent no. 1 instituted a suit for arrears of rent and eviction after terminating the tenancy of the petitioners vide notice dated 3.10.2008. The suit has been decreed by the courts below. 3. One of the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the petitioners had no knowledge of the property being purchased by respondent no. 1. However, when respondent no. 1 tried to interfere in their use and possession, he instituted a suit for a decree of permanent injunction arraying respondent no. 1 as one of the defendants. 4. In the plaint of the said suit or proceeding whereof, no material had come on record which may indicate that the petitioners had knowledge of the sale deed dated 27.8.2001 but the courts below misconstruing the documents of the aforesaid suit held that the petitioners had defaulted in payment of rent to the owner since 28.4.2001. 5. The other submission of learned counsel for the petitioners is that the previous owners had accepted the rent of the property upto December 2007 and as such they are not defaulters. 6. Sri Swapnil Kumar on the other hand contends that even assuming for a minute that there was no information of the property being purchased by respondent no. 1, the petitioners are liable to eviction as they have neither paid rent to the previous owners nor to the petitioners. 7. The attention of the Court has been drawn to the written statement filed by the petitioners. In the said written statement there are no pleadings to the effect that the petitioners ever paid rent of the property to the previous owners after the sale deed dated 28.4.2001. 8. It appears that the petitioners applied for amendment of the written statement so as to add that they have paid rent upto December 2007 to the previous owners and have obtained receipts. The amendment was refused. 8. It appears that the petitioners applied for amendment of the written statement so as to add that they have paid rent upto December 2007 to the previous owners and have obtained receipts. The amendment was refused. The said order refusing amendment was not specifically challenged but against the rejection of one another amendment application a writ petition was filed in the High Court and the same was dismissed. 9. In short petitioners were not permitted to amend the written statement so as to plead the rent upto December 2007 was paid to the previous owners. The rejection of the aforesaid amendment is not being disputed or challenged in the present writ petition as well. 10. Apart from the above, petitioners during pendency of the revision moved application for bringing on record the rent receipts so as to show that rent upto December 2007 was paid to the previous owners. The said application was also rejected with certain findings which are not very relevant in as much as the petitioners can not be permitted to adduce evidence beyond the pleadings. The order refusing to accept the rent receipts on record was also not interfered with by the High Court. 11. It is in the above back-ground that the courts below have recorded concurrent finding that the petitioners have defaulted for payment of rent and as such is liable to eviction. 12. I find no error or illegality in the said finding more particularly in view of the finding on issue no. 1 wherein the petitioners have admitted themselves to be the tenant and the respondent no. 1 as the owner and the landlord. 13. In the end Sri Dubey prays that some reasonable time may be allowed to the petitioners to vacate the property in dispute. Sri Swapnil Kumar, learned counsel appearing for respondent no. 1 has no objection, if some reasonable time is allowed and the petitioners are directed to clear of all the arrears of rent. 14. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, petitioners are permitted to retain the accommodation for a period of six months from today provided they give an undertaking before the court of first instance within a period of three weeks from today that they will vacate the premises and handover the peaceful possession within the aforesaid period and clear of all the dues as decreed by the courts below. 15. 15. In addition to the above, petitioners shall deposit damages for the use and occupation of the property @ Rs. 1,000/- per month w.e.f. 1st of July 2014 till its vacation on monthly basis by the 7th of each succeeding month. 16. In the event of default, the benefit for retaining the premises for six months shall not be available to the petitioners. 17. The writ petition has no merit and is dismissed.