Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 368 (ALL)

Toto Ram v. Ram Swaroop Baghel

2015-02-24

RAJESH DAYAL KHARE

body2015
JUDGMENT Rajesh Dayal Khare,J. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner had earlier engaged Sri Mathura Pal, as his learned counsel for filing the present writ petition subsequently he died and the writ petition could not be filed on behalf of the petitioner. The petitioner had no knowledge about his later on, he contacted the office of Sri Mathura Pal, and was intimated about his sad demise, thereafter, the petitioner engaged the present counsel for filing the present petition. It is thus contended that delay in filing of the present petition is not deliberate. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner is the tenant of the respondent-landlord of the premises in question on a monthly rent of Rs. 400/- and the respondent-landlord filed a rent suit no. 50 of 2002 for eviction of the petitioner on the ground of default in payment of rent against which, the petitioner filed a written statement in which, after adducing of the evidence between the parties, the suit was decreed by the trial Court vide order dated 20.07.2012 against the petitioner filed a S.C.C. Revision No. 14 of 2012 which too has been dismissed by learned Additional District Judge/Special Judge, Aligarh. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contends that the courts below had erroneously did not consider the question of title even the security deposit amount which was deposited by the petitioner at the time of taking of the shop in question has not been refunded, therefore, it is argued that the orders impugned cannot be sustained law. 5. It is not disputed by the counsel for the petitioner that the amount of rent could not be deposited even on the Ist date of hearing, although it has been stated by the learned counsel that the petitioner is ready to deposit the amount. 6. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners and after perusing the averments made in the present writ petition as well as orders impugned, this Court is of the opinion that learned counsel for the petitioner could not point out any good ground for quashing the orders impugned in exercise of powers conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 7. Accordingly, the prayer for quashing the orders impugned is refused. 8. The writ petition lacks merit and is dismissed. 9. 7. Accordingly, the prayer for quashing the orders impugned is refused. 8. The writ petition lacks merit and is dismissed. 9. However, when the order of dismissal of the writ petition was dictated, the learned counsel for the petitioner prays that sometime may be granted to the petitioner to vacate the premises in question. 10. Accordingly, one year time from today is granted to the petitioner to vacate the premises in question provided the petitioner gives an undertaking on oath before the concerned Court below that he will vacate the premises in question immediately on or before the last date of one year from today. It is further directed that in the meantime, the petitioner shall deposits the entire arrears of rent before the Prescribed Authority within a period of one month from today and continues to deposit the monthly rent month by month by 7th of each calender month before the concerned court below. The amount so deposited by the petitioner is permitted to be withdrawn by the respondent-landlord. 11. In case of default in payment of rent as stated above, the protection granted by this Court shall automatically stands vacated.