Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 2317 (ALL)

Mukesh Kant Chaturvedi v. Anil Kumar Gupta

2016-07-05

PANKAJ NAQVI

body2016
JUDGMENT Pankaj Naqvi, J. – Heard Sri Munesh Kumar/Ashish Kumar, learned counsel for the revisionist and Sri Lalit Kumar for the opposite party. 2. This revision u/s 25 of the PSCC Act is preferred against the judgment and order dated 29.4.2016 passed by Addl. District Judge (Court no.12), Moradabad in SC Suit no. 24 of 2011, whereby a suit for eviction arrears of rent etc. preferred by the opposite party/landlord is decreed. 3. The opposite party/landlord filed a suit for eviction, arrears of rent etc against the revisionist/ tenant in respect of the shop in dispute alleging the same to be a new construction of 1987; the revisionist is a tenant @ Rs. 3300/- per month, the provisions of the U.P. Act XIII of 1972 are not applicable; rent stands paid only upto February 2011, whereas rental amounting to Rs.13,200/-, i.e, of four months from 1.3.2011 to 30.6.2011 remains unpaid despite repeated demands, followed by a quit notice dated 4.7.2011, which stood served upon the revisionist on 5.7.2011, pursuant thereto, the revisionist on 22.7.2011 deposited the rent for the period 1.3.2011 to 31.7.2011, which was received by the opposite party/ landlord under protest. He thus alleged that there was no waiver of the notice dated 4.7.2011 sent by him. It was finally alleged that the said shop can easily earn a rental of Rs.6000/- per month, i.e, he also claimed damages @ Rs.200/- per day. 4. The suit was contested by the revisionist/tenant by filing a written statement, wherein tenancy and the rate of rent was admitted, but it was denied that there was any default in payment of rent, but it was alleged that as the opposite party/ landlord refused to issue any rent-receipt for the period in question, if same was not tendered. The receipt of the quit notice was also admitted, but it was stated that after the receipt of the said notice, the rent for the period in question was paid to the opposite party landlord on 22.7.2011, whereas the landlord again refused to accept the rent for the August 2011, which was subsequently sent by way of money-order, but the same was also refused. It was thus stated that there are no out-standings as against him and the suit for eviction is liable to be dismissed. 5. It was thus stated that there are no out-standings as against him and the suit for eviction is liable to be dismissed. 5. The court below after considering the pleadings/ evidence held that the shop in question being assessed to first municipal assessment in the year 1987 and also in view of the fact that the rate of rent being more than Rs.2000/-, i.e, Rs.3300/- would make the building go outside the purview of the U.P. Act XIII of 1972, decreed the suit as above. It further held that in view of the admitted position in the written statement the service of the quit notice stood admitted to the revisionist/tenant. 6. Learned counsel for the revisionist could not demonstrate and illegality/ impropriety in the impugned judgment/ decree. 7. The revision fails and is accordingly dismissed. 8. Learned counsel for the revisionist then submits that the revisionist/ tenant is prepared to vacate the shop in question provided, he is granted some reasonable time to vacate the same. 9. Request is reasonable and is accepted. It is provided that (i) the revisionist shall file an undertaking on an affidavit before the court below within 4 weeks from today that he would hand over the vacant/ peaceful possession of the shop in question on or before 16.1.2017 in favour of the opposite party/ landlord, and that he shall also deposit the entire decretal amount within six weeks from today before the court below and the opposite party/ landlord shall be entitled to withdraw the same unconditionally; (ii) that the revisionist/tenant shall continue to deposit the mesne profits at the rate awarded, as and when it falls due for payment till the handing over of the possession. (iii) In the event of default of either of the aforesaid conditions, the impugned decree shall become executable forthwith. 10. If the revisionist complies with the aforesaid conditions, the execution of the impugned decree shall be kept in abeyance for the period in question.