Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 656 (ALL)

Genda Lal v. Chhedi Lal

2016-02-23

SURYA PRAKASH KESARWANI

body2016
JUDGMENT Surya Prakash Kesarwani, J. – Heard Sri Bhupendra Nath Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. This writ petition has been filed praying for the following relief: - "I. Issue appropriate writ or order or direction quashing the impugned judgement and decree dated 15.12.2015 passed by learned IX- Additional District Judge, Kanpur Nagar in S.C.C. Revision No. 109 of 2012 (Genda Lal v. Chhedi Lal) and the judgement and decree dated 17.11.2012 in Case No. 307 of 2006 (Chhedi Lal v. Genda Lal) passed by Rent Control Tribunal, Kanpur Nagar. II. Issue any other appropriate, writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances. III. Award suitable cost of the petition to the petitioner." 3. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner-tenant is as under: - (i) The Judge Small Causes Court has not recorded any finding on issue No. 1. (ii) The plaintiff-respondent is the landlord of the tenanted property and as such the impugned judgement dated 17.11.2012 passed by the Judge Small Causes Court as well as impugned judgement dated 15.12.2-15 passed in S.C.C. Revision No. 109 of 2012 are wholly arbitrary and illegal. (iii) No valid notice was issued by the plaintiff-respondent and as such the S.C.C. case itself was not maintainable. 4. In support of his submission Sri Bhupendra Nath Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the decision of this Court in the case of Gurmala and others v. Mohd. Ishaq and others, 2014(3) A.W.C. 2858 (Para 14 and 15) and the judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Budhu Mal v. Mahabir Prasad and others, AIR 1988 S.C. 1772 (Para-9). 5. I have carefully considered the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner-tenant/defendant. 6. Facts of present case are that one Room No. 8 on the ground floor of the house bearing Municipal No. 133/383 Dhaknapurva, Kanpur Nagar was let out by the plaintiff-respondent to the petitioner-defendant/tenant on a monthly rent of Rs. 25/-. The petitioner-defendant deposited the rent in Court in Misc. Case No. 766/70 of 1998 (Genda Lal v. Chhedi Lal) on 31st December, 1998 which was withdrawn by the plaintiff-respondent. However, since January 1999 the petitioner-defendant again defaulted in payment of rent and also illegally occupied another room under tenancy of one Sri Madhav Ram. 25/-. The petitioner-defendant deposited the rent in Court in Misc. Case No. 766/70 of 1998 (Genda Lal v. Chhedi Lal) on 31st December, 1998 which was withdrawn by the plaintiff-respondent. However, since January 1999 the petitioner-defendant again defaulted in payment of rent and also illegally occupied another room under tenancy of one Sri Madhav Ram. Under the circumstances, the plaintiff-respondent issued a notice dated 5th April, 2006 by registered post to the petitioner-defendant/tenant demanding arrears of rent. However, the notice was not complied with and as such the plaintiff-respondent terminated the tenancy of the petitioner-defendant/tenant after expiry of the period of notice. Since the petitioner-defendant did not vacate the tenanted Room No. 8 and as such the plaintiff-respondent instituted a S.C.C. Case No. 307 of 2006, which was decreed by the impugned judgement dated 17.11.2012. 7. Aggrieved with this judgement the petitioner-defendant/tenant filed a S.C.C. Revision No. 109 of 2012 in the court of Additional District Judge, Court No. 9, Kanpur Nagar, which was dismissed by the impugned judgement dated 15.12.2015. Aggrieved with these two judgements the petitioner-defendant/tenant has filed the present petition challenging the above two judgements on the grounds as afore-mentioned. 8. So far as the first submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is concerned, I find that while deciding issue No. 1 the Judge Small Causes Court in its judgement dated 17.11.2012 discussed in detail the facts and evidences on record and recorded a finding of fact that in Misc. Case No. 766/70 of 1998 (Genda Lal v. Chhedi Lal) rent from 1.10.1993 to 31.12.1998 was deposited by the petitioner-defendant/tenant by tender being Paper No. 53-C/1, which was withdrawn by the plaintiff-respondent. 9. The rent for the period 1.1.1999 to 31.12.2003 was deposited by the petitioner-defendant/tenant being paper No. 53-C/2 on 15.11.2002. The petitioner-defendant (D.W.1) in paragraph-8 of his affidavit admitted that he has not paid rent after 1.1.2004. On these facts the Judge Small Causes Court came to conclusion that the petitioner-defendant defaulted in payment of rent after 1.1.2004. No issue was framed on the question of absence of landlord-tenant relationship. The petitioner-defendant (D.W.1) in paragraph-8 of his affidavit admitted that he has not paid rent after 1.1.2004. On these facts the Judge Small Causes Court came to conclusion that the petitioner-defendant defaulted in payment of rent after 1.1.2004. No issue was framed on the question of absence of landlord-tenant relationship. The ground set up before this Court that one Sri Babban Ali became the owner of the disputed property and as such the plaintiff-respondent cannot be said to be landlord of the disputed property, is wholly without substance inasmuch as the house in question owned by the plaintiff-respondent was not sold by him rather a house was sold by Sheela and Rani, daughters of Sri Agnu Prasad to Sri Babban Ali on 12.4.2003. It is undisputed that the plaintiff-respondent was the owner and landlord of the tenanted house and he has not sold the said house to Sri Babban Ali. Under the circumstances, I do not find any substance in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner-defendant with regard to the landlord-tenant relationship. 10. So far as the third submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner-defendant with regard to the validity of notice is concerned, I find that the Judge Small Causes Court as well as the revisional court have recorded concurrent finding of fact that the notice dated 5th April, 2006 (Paper No. 7-C) was sent by registered post by the plaintiff-respondent to the petitioner-defendant which was duly served on the petitioner-defendant on 7.4.2006 and the same was received by the petitioner-defendant by putting his own signature on the acknowledgment which has been filed in evidence as Paper No. 9-C. Thus, the fact of giving notice dated 5th April, 2006 is wholly undisputed. The S.C.C. Case No. 307 of 2006 was instituted by the plaintiff-respondent on 3rd October, 2006. No rent was paid by the petitioner-defendant/tenant within the period prescribed under section 20(2) of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972. 9. The S.C.C. Case No. 307 of 2006 was instituted by the plaintiff-respondent on 3rd October, 2006. No rent was paid by the petitioner-defendant/tenant within the period prescribed under section 20(2) of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972. 9. The judgement in the case of Gurmala (supra) relied by the petitioner is of no help to him inasmuch as in the said case one Sri Mahabir Prasad, who was the owner of the tenanted property had sold it by registered Sale Deed dated 8th December, 1966 and subsequently executed a deed of cancellation dated 3rd November, 1970 and for this reason the title of Mahabir Prasad to realise the rent from the tenant was disputed by the tenant. 11. The next judgement relied by learned counsel for the petitioner in the case of Budhu Mal (supra) is also distinguishable on facts as mentioned in paragraphs 2 to 8 of the said judgement. 12. After the judgement was dictated, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that no finding was recorded by the trial court on the question of Sale-deed in favour of one Sri Babban Ali and mutation of his name in the Municipal record. The submission is rejected for the reason that the petitioner-defendant has always admitted the plaintiff-respondent as landlord and has been paying rent to him but defaulted subsequently in payment of rent. Even no issue was got framed nor any argument on this point was raised by the petitioner-defendant before the Judge Small Causes Court. The issues framed and the points argued by the petitioner defendant were well considered by the Judge Small Causes Court and findings of fact based on consideration of relevant evidences on record were recorded. 13. In view of these concurrent findings of fact based on consideration of relevant evidences on record, I do not find any infirmity in the impugned judgements. 14. In view of the above discussions, I do not find any merit in this petition. In result, writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed. Petition dismissed.