Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 258 (ALL)

Sachin Kumar Narula v. Ramesh Lal

2016-01-19

YASHWANT VARMA

body2016
JUDGMENT Yashwant Varma, J. – Heard learned counsel for the contesting parties. 2. The challenge in the present revision is to an order dated 16 December 2015 passed by the Judge Small Causes Court in terms of which the suit of the plaintiff opposite party for eviction has come to be decreed. 3. The suit premises admittedly carried a rent of more than Rs. 2000/ and therefore, the provisions of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 did not apply. Additionally, the Court below has gone into the issue of the first assessment and has found that prior to 26 April 1985 no earlier assessment was relied upon or filed on behalf of the defendant revisionist and therefore, this was evidence of the fact that the provisions of the 1972 Act were not applicable. 4. During the course of submissions before this Court, learned counsel for the revisionist has not advanced any contention in respect of the validity of the notice issued under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. He has centred his submissions on the issue of the rent for the period 1 November 2012 to 31 July 2013 having not been deposited or tendered to the plaintiff opposite party and the findings of the Court below as returned on this score. Learned counsel for the revisionist submits referring to the application No. 15C2 dated 9 January 2014 to contend that the entire rent for the period aforementioned was duly tendered and receipt thereof was also duly executed by the plaintiff opposite party. 5. In the opinion of this Court in the absence of any challenge being laid to the validity of the notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act or in respect of the findings relating to non applicability of the provisions of the 1972 Act, no substantial challenge remains on which the revisionist may call upon this Court to test the validity of the order of the Court below. Admittedly, the provisions of Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act and the right of the landlord to terminate the tenancy is not dependent or subservient to the fact of the tenant being in arrears of rent. Consequently this Court finds no merit in the present revision and the challenge laid to the findings returned by the Court below. 6. Consequently this Court finds no merit in the present revision and the challenge laid to the findings returned by the Court below. 6. Learned counsel for the revisionist at the end submitted that some reasonable time may be granted to the revisionist to handover peaceful vacant possession of the suit premises to the plaintiff respondent. Learned counsel for the opposite party states that in case this Court may consider it fit and appropriate, in the interest of justice a time of four months at best may be provided to the revisionist to vacate the suit premises. This offer which has been fairly extended by Sri B.N. Rai, learned counsel for the opposite party has been accepted by Syed Wajid Ali, learned counsel for the revisionist. Accordingly, this Court takes on record the statement of Syed Wajid Ali made on behalf of the defendant revisionist that the defendant revisionist shall hand over vacant and peaceful possession of the suit premises to the plaintiff opposite party within a period of four months from today. He further undertakes that the revisionist will continue to pay the monthly rent during this period. 7. Subject to the aforesaid modification, the order of the court below is upheld. This revision shall stand dismissed. Revision dismissed.