Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 3226 (ALL)

Moinuddin @ Mammo v. State of U. P.

2016-09-21

PANKAJ MITHAL

body2016
JUDGMENT Pankaj Mithal, J. – Heard Sri Vikrant Rana, learned counsel for the petitioners. Sri Ashish Kumar Singh, learned counsel has appeared for the respondents. 2. The suit of the respondents for arrears of rent and eviction after determination of the tenancy of the petitioners from the buildings in question has been decreed by the courts below. Hence the petitioners have preferred this petition. 3. The first submission of Sri Rana, is that the provisions of U.P. Act No.13 of 1972 (hereafter referred to as the Act) are applicable to the building in question and therefore, the finding in this regard by the trial court is incorrect and illegal. He intends to suggest that in the event the Act is held to be applicable, he would be entitle to protection of tenancy under Section 20(4) of the Act. 4. His further submission is that the respondents are subsequent purchasers and they have not provided the copy of the sale deed by which they have purchased it and therefore, the demand of copy of the sale deed would not amount to denial of title. 5. The facts of the case reveal that after the respondents have purchased the property on 24.07.2000 by registered sale deed, they demanded rent and determined the tenancy of the petitioners vide notice dated 22.11.2005 which was duly replied to by the petitioners. On its basis suit for arrears of rent and eviction was filed after a ground was added with regard to denial of title also. 6. The trial court held that the Act is not applicable as the building has been constructed after 1985. The revisional court has not touched the said finding as it had not considered the above aspect of the matter probably for the reason that none of the parties argued on the applicability or non-applicability of the Act. 7. Admittedly, there is a default on part of the petitioners in payment of rent as no rent was ever paid by the petitioners either to the previous owners and landlords or to the present landlords since 24.07.2000. 8. In case it is assumed for the sake of arguments that the Act is applicable, the petitioners stand nothing to gain, as in that event both the grounds of default in payment of rent and denial of title would be available to the respondents. 9. 8. In case it is assumed for the sake of arguments that the Act is applicable, the petitioners stand nothing to gain, as in that event both the grounds of default in payment of rent and denial of title would be available to the respondents. 9. The default in payment of rent having been established, the petitioners tenancy would stand saved only if the benefit of Section 20(4) of the Act is extended to them. 10. The petitioners at no point of time moved any application or claimed the benefit of Section 20(4) of the Act. They nowhere pleaded or alleged that they have deposited the entire amount admitted to be due along with 9% interest thereon and the cost of the notice on or before the first date of hearing of the suit. 11. In such an event, the petitioner are not entitle to any benefit under Section 20(4) of the Act. 12. Accordingly, only on the ground of default in payment of rent, the petitioners are liable to be evicted from the disputed accommodation. 13. There is thus, no merit in the petition and the same is dismissed with no order as to costs. Petition dismissed.