Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 3968 (ALL)

Premlata Agarwal v. Union of India

2015-12-14

SUNITA AGARWAL

body2015
JUDGMENT Mrs. Sunita Agarwal,J. It appears that an application for enhancement of rent was filed by the petitioner under Section 21 (8) of U.P. Act 13 of 1972 which was allowed on 21.07.1993 and the rent of the disputed accommodation was enhanced from Rs. 405/- per month to Rs. 1104/- per month. The appeal against the order of enhancement of rent was rejected on 24.03.1994. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a SCC suit on the ground of default in payment of rent which was registered as SCC suit no. 34 of 2001. The suit for arrears of rent, ejectment and damages was decreed on 10.09.2002. After the decree of the SCC Court, an application dated 20.02.2009 purported to be under Rule 24 (1) with Section 34 (3) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 was filed with the prayer that the recovery certificate may be issued for recovery of enhanced rent under the order dated 21.07.1993. The fact of decree dated 10.09.2002 was not brought before the Rent Control and Eviction Officer. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer rejected this application with the finding that in case there was default in payment of enhanced rent, the landlady/applicant could file a suit before the competent Court under Section 20 (1) (a) of the Act. 2. Challenging this order, the present writ petition has been filed. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the enhanced rent as per the order of the Prescribed Authority dated 21.07.1993 can be realized through a certificate of recovery to be issued under Rule 24 (1) of Rules 1972. 3. This submission of learned counsel for the petitioner deserves rejection inasmuch as the amount which is sought to be recovered is the decreetal money under the decree dated 09.01.2002. It cannot be termed as dues under the order dated 21.07.1993 in the proceedings under Section 21 (8) of the Act. The decreetal amount can only be realized by putting the decree in execution. No recovery certificate can be issued. The provisions of Rule 24 (1) are not applicable in the facts of the present case. 4. It is further noteworthy that this writ petition was filed on 09.07.2010 and the prayer made by the learned counsel for the petitioner it was listed. It was never argued since thereafter. 5. The writ petition is wholly misconceived and dismissed.