Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 446 (ALL)

Sarojani Devi Mehrotra v. Sandeep Anand

2015-03-10

RAJESH DAYAL KHARE

body2015
JUDGMENT Rajesh Dayal Khare,J. List of fresh cases has been revised. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Dhruva Narayan learned counsel for the respondent. 3. Present writ petition has been filed seeking a writ of certiorari quashing the judgment and order dated 07.2.2015 passed by the Additional District Judge, Court No. 9 Allahabad in Civil Revision No. 103 of 2011 and the judgment and order dated 24.1.2011 passed by Judge Small Causes Court/Additional Civil Judge(Senior Division)Allahabad in Small Cause Case No. 92 of 2008. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that proceedings were drawn by the respondent on the ground that he is the landlord-owner of the premises in question, of which the petitioners are the tenant and the petitioners have defaulted in payment of rent, which suit was decreed and revision against the same has also been dismissed. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that as the property in question is owned by several owners and there was a dispute with regard to ownership of the property, rent was not paid. Learned counsel for the petitioners further contends that the petitioners are ready to deposit the rent now. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent states that it is not disputed that the petitioner is in default of payment of rent and even if there was a dispute with regard to ownership of the property, the petitioners ought to have deposited the rent before the court, as per law, which has not been done and thus, it has been contended that the order impugned have rightly been passed and suffer from no infirmity in law, which may call for any interference by this Court for quashing the same. 6. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the orders impugned and the material on record, this Court is of the opinion that learned counsel for the petitioners could not make out any good ground which may warrant interference by this Court in exercise of power conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for quashing the orders impugned. 7. Accordingly, the prayer for quashing the orders impugned is hereby refused. 8. Present petition lacks merit and is dismissed. No order as to costs. 9. After the order was passed, learned counsel for the petitioners prays that some reasonable time may be given to the petitioners for vacating the premises in question. 10. 7. Accordingly, the prayer for quashing the orders impugned is hereby refused. 8. Present petition lacks merit and is dismissed. No order as to costs. 9. After the order was passed, learned counsel for the petitioners prays that some reasonable time may be given to the petitioners for vacating the premises in question. 10. Accordingly, one year from today is granted to the petitioners for vacating the premises in question subject to payment of monthly rent by 07th of each calendar month till handing over the actual possession to the respondent-landlord and also the petitioners 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 one year. 11. The petitioners shall also deposit the arrears of rent due before the Court below within two months from today. 12. The amount of rent so deposited by the petitioners may be permitted to be withdrawn by the landlords, after due verification by the courts below. 13. In case of default of conditions mentioned above, this protection granted to the petitioners shall automatically stand vacated.