Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 279 (ALL)

Baburam Singh v. District Judge

2015-02-11

RAJESH DAYAL KHARE

body2015
JUDGMENT Rajesh Dayal Khare, J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that for the reasons detailed in paragraph-23 of the writ petition, there are no laches on the part of the petitioner in approaching this Court. 3. Present writ petition has been filed seeking a writ of certiorari quashing the judgment and order dated 22.8.2014 and decree dated 27.8.2014 passed by District Judge Banda in Small Causes Revision No. 6? of 2014 and the order dated 21.1.2014 and decree dated 27.8.2014 and the formal order dated 05.2.2014 passed by Civil Judge (Junior Division) Banda in SCC Suit No. 2 of 2010. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner, who is old ailing person of 73 years of age, is tenant of portion of premises in question for the last more than 46 years at the monthly rent of Rs. 30/-, of which Smt. Shanti Nigam widow of Badri Prasad was the owner and landlady.? It is next contended that after the death of Smt. Shanti Nigam her two sons and one daughter inherited the property as her legal heirs and representatives and the daughter's name is Kamal Kumari Nigam.? It was argued that the monthly rent was paid regularly by the petitioner to Smt. Shanti Nigam till her death i.e. 26.3.2009.? It is admitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that rent is not being paid.? It is further contended that respondent No. 3 Kamal Kumari Nigam filed JSCC Suit No. 2 of 2010 for eviction of the petitioner from the premise in question on the ground of default in payment of rent and after exchange of pleadings and adducing of evidence, the suit was decreed, against which the petitioner filed SCC Revision No. 06 of 2014, which was also dismissed. 5. Since it has been admitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the rent of the premise in question is not being paid by the petitioner since 26.3.2009 nor the same has been deposited in the Court as per provisions of law, this Court is of the opinion that no good ground is made out which may call for interference by this Court in exercise of power conferred under writ jurisdiction. 6. Accordingly, the prayer for quashing the orders impugned is hereby refused. 7. Present petition lacks merit and is dismissed.? 6. Accordingly, the prayer for quashing the orders impugned is hereby refused. 7. Present petition lacks merit and is dismissed.? No order as to costs. 8. After the order was dictated learned counsel for the petitioner prays that some time may be given to the petitioner, who is an old person, for vacating the premise in question. 9. Accordingly, eight months from today is granted to the petitioner for vacating the premises in question subject to payment of monthly rent at the rate of Rs. 500/- per month till handing over? the actual possession to the respondent-landlord and also the petitioner shall give an undertaking on oath before the court below within fifteen days from today with regard to vacation of the premises in question within eight months. 10. The amount of rent so deposited by the petitioner may be permitted to be withdrawn by the landlords. 11. In case of default of conditions mentioned above, this protection granted to the petitioner shall automatically stand vacated.