Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 3311 (ALL)

Rehana Khatoon v. Mohd. Shamim Alias Bakridi

2015-10-26

SUNEET KUMAR

body2015
JUDGMENT Suneet Kumar, J. Learned counsel for the applicant is permitted to make necessary correction in the prayer of the petition. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 3. The tenant-applicants have approached this Court assailing the judgement and decree dated 31 August 2015, passed by the Revisional Court in Revision No. 55 of 2013, arising from judgement, passed by the Small Causes Court of Kanpur Nagar decreeing the suit of the respondents for eviction and arrears of rent. 4. The sole point pressed by Sri P.K. Jain, learned senior advocate is that the finding returned by the court below while deciding the issue "as to whether the provision of Act 13 of 1972 would apply or not to the suit property being residential premises" is erroneous and bad in law and fact. 5. The facts in brief is that the respondent-landlord filed a suit in respect of residential premises No. 102/160, situated in Colonelganj, Kanpur for eviction and arrears of rent, the petitioners are tenants of first and second floor. The petitioner contended in their written statement that the building is not a new construction, therefore, provision of Act 13 of 1972 is applicable. The father of the petitioner was the original tenant and after his death, petitioners have become tenants. 6. The trial court relying upon the material document and evidence returned a finding that the ground floor of the disputed premises was assessed on 1 April 1983 and the assessment records from the year 1987 to 1992 would reflect that the first and second floor were assessed for the first time along with the ground floor, the entire building was assessed with effect from 1 April 1987. Accordingly, relying upon the assessment record held that the tenanted portion was assessed for the first time in April 1987. 7. Learned senior counsel is not disputing the assessment record in respect of the disputed premises and has failed to show any illegality or perversity in the finding returned by the courts below. 8. This Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India would not sit in appeal over the finding of fact returned by the court below. (vide Radhey Shyam and another Vs. Chhabi Nath and others, 2015(3) ADJ 210(SC). 9. It is made clear that no other point was urged or pressed by the learned counsel. 10. (vide Radhey Shyam and another Vs. Chhabi Nath and others, 2015(3) ADJ 210(SC). 9. It is made clear that no other point was urged or pressed by the learned counsel. 10. Having due regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to interfere with the impugned order. 11. The petition is accordingly dismissed. 12. Upon dismissal of the petition, learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the applicants be given some reasonable time to vacate the premises, to which Sri Arvind Srivastava, learned counsel appearing for the respondents has no objection. 13. In this view of the matter, it is provided that in case the applicants give undertaking on oath before the court below that they shall vacate the premises in question and hand over the possession of the same peacefully to the respondents-landlord on or before 31 October 2016, eviction of the applicants be not done till then. The aforesaid undertaking on oath shall be given by the applicants before the court below within a period of fifteen days from today and the applicants shall deposit the monthly rent of the premises in question before the court concerned as per current rent fixed and shall continue to deposit the same by 7th of each calendar month till the vacation of the premises in question, which amount may be permitted to be withdrawn by the respondent-landlord after due verification by the court concerned. 14. In case of default, protection granted above to the applicant shall automatically stand vacated. No order as to costs.