Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 3083 (ALL)

Raj Kumar v. Nawal Kishor Agarwal

2016-09-08

PANKAJ MITHAL

body2016
JUDGMENT Pankaj Mithal, J. – Heard Sri C.B. Gupta, learned counsel for the defendant-revisionist. 2. The revision has been preferred under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Causes Courts Act, 1887 against the judgement and order dated 01.08.2016 passed by Additional District Judge, decreeing SCC Suit No. 21 of 2013, Nawal Kishore Agarwal v. Raj Kumar for rent and ejectment. 3. The argument of Sri Gupta learned counsel for the defendant-revisionist is that the notice was given under the provision of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 and without there being any default in payment of rent the suit has been decreed for eviction. 4. The rent of the shop is over Rs. 2,000/- i.e. Rs. 2,653/- per month. Therefore, the shop is exempt under Section 2 (1) (g) of the Act from the applicability of the Act. Learned counsel for the defendant-revisionist very fairly accepts that the provisions of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 are not applicable to the shop in question. 5. Now when the Act is not applicable it is not necessary to determine the tenancy only the grounds specified under Section 20 of the Act. It cannot be determined simpliciter if the landlord does not want to keep the tenant any longer. 6. The court below has considered the notice by which the tenancy of the defendant-revisionist was determined and recorded a finding that the said notice is under section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act and the mere statement of the plaintiff-respondent that the notice was given under the provisions of the Act is of no consequence. 7. The notice of determination of tenancy dated 09.04.2013 has been filed by the defendant-revisionist as annexure-5 to the revision. 8. A bare perusal of the said notice reveals that it in paragraph 6 clearly states that the plaintiff-respondent does not want to keep the defendant-revisionist as his tenant and therefore determines his tenancy on the expiry of 30 days from the date of service of the notice. 9. It is well settled that a notice for determination the tenancy has to be construed not with finding faults with it but according to intention expressed therein. 10. In view of the aforesaid averments contained in the notice, the tenancy of the defendant-revisionist has been determined simpliciter as provided under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. 11. 9. It is well settled that a notice for determination the tenancy has to be construed not with finding faults with it but according to intention expressed therein. 10. In view of the aforesaid averments contained in the notice, the tenancy of the defendant-revisionist has been determined simpliciter as provided under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. 11. Accordingly, I hold that the notice determining the tenancy was under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act and there is no irregularity or any illegality either in the determination of the tenancy or in the notice. 12. In view of the above, there is no merit in the submission advanced by learned counsel for the defendant-revisionist. 13. No other point has been raised before me 14. In the end, learned counsel for the defendant-revisionist prays that some reasonable time may be allowed for vacating the shop in dispute. 15. In view of the above, in the interest of justice, the defendant-revisionist is allowed three months time to vacate the shop in dispute subject to furnishing an undertaking on affidavit before the court below within a period of three weeks from today that he will hand over peaceful vacant possession of the shop within the time allowed and the deposits/tenders the entire as decreed and continues to pay/deposit damages/rent for its use and occupation for these three months @ Rs. 3,000/- per month. 16. The revision is accordingly dismissed. Revision dismissed.