Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 2681 (ALL)

Satyapal Gera v. Ashutosh Trivedi

2017-11-20

VIVEK KUMAR BIRLA

body2017
JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Shri D. V. Jaiswal, learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. Present petition has been filed challenging the judgment and order dated 1.9.2016 passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division)/Judge, Small Cause Court, Amroha and 13.10.2017 passed by the Additional District Judge/Fast Track (Ist) Amroha. 3. SCC suit was filed for rent and eviction by the landlord-respondent herein against the tenant on the ground that petitioner herein was tenant on the shop in dispute at the rate of Rs. 600/-per month. The tenant has committed default in making payment of rent w.e.f. 1.9.2000 and in spite of repeated demand, the same was not deposited. Ultimately, a notice dated 18.4.2011 was given to the tenant which was received by him on 19.4.2011, but still the rent was not deposited and therefore, the suit was instituted for rent and eviction claiming therein that since the arrears prior to 14.7.2008 are time barred and therefore, the amount of arrears is being claimed w.e.f. 13.7.2008. 4. The five issues were framed. On first issue, it was held that the rent was in arrear and there is a default in making the payment of the rent after the year 2000. The second issue was regarding validity of the notice and in view of the fact that the notice was admitted by the tenant in his cross examination, the same also decided in favour of the landlord. The third issue was framed as to whether the tenant was entitled for benefit of Section 20 (4) of the U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972. 5. It was the case of the tenant that he has deposited the rent from 14.8.2007 to 30.11.2011 alongwith interest and therefore, he is entitled for under Section 20 (4) of the Act. Since, it was found that after the year 2000, rent has not been paid, therefore, it was found that the tenant was not entitled for the benefit of Section 20 (4) of the Act. On issue Nos. 5 and 6, the relief was granted to the landlord. It was found that the landlord is entitled for the relief claimed and as such, a decree of rent and eviction was filed against the tenant. The rent revision filed by the tenant was also dismissed. 6. On issue Nos. 5 and 6, the relief was granted to the landlord. It was found that the landlord is entitled for the relief claimed and as such, a decree of rent and eviction was filed against the tenant. The rent revision filed by the tenant was also dismissed. 6. Submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the tenant has committed default in making payment of rent is incorrect inasmuch as the tenant has given Pagri of Rs. 75,000/-to the landlord which was liable to be adjusted; the rent as payable to the landlord has been adjusted in purchase of goods by the landlord from the shop of the tenant; and the entire rent was deposited on the first date of hearing as demanded by the landlord with effect from 2008 to 2011 as already noticed and therefore, the tenant was entitled for the benefit of Section 20 (4) of the Act. 7. I have considered the submission and perused the record. 8. From the perusal of record, I find that the arguments that are being advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner have been considered and decided by the Revisional Court and it was found that in so far as the deposit of amount of Pagri to the tune of Rs. 75,000/-is concerned, the tenant has failed to produce any evidence indicating that the same was received by the landlord and the oral submission of the tenant to this effect was categorically denied by the landlord. So far as the adjustment of the rent payable by the tenant in the goods purchased by the landlord is concerned, it was found that only certain pages of the copies were produced before the Court wherein although entries of receiving cash and the entries of certain amount towards the goods supplied to the landlord were shown but there were no signature of the landlord on such documents and as such, it cannot be said that goods were supplied to the landlord. It was also found that there is no evidence on record that the rent after the year 2000 was paid to the landlord or even was deposited before the Court under Section 20 (4) of the Act. It was also found that there is no evidence on record that the rent after the year 2000 was paid to the landlord or even was deposited before the Court under Section 20 (4) of the Act. It is a settled law that to avail the benefit of Section 20 (4) of the Act, even the time barred rent also has to be deposited by the tenant, which, admittedly, was not deposited by the tenant. 9. The other findings are also based on the documentary as well as oral evidence advanced by the parties before the Court below, which cannot be interfered by this Court in exercise of power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 10. A reference may be made in this regard to the Constitutional Bench judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. Vs. Dilbahar Singh (2014) 9 SCC 78 according to which no interference is warranted in such findings of fact. It is also settled law that jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is akin to revisional jurisdiction and the scope of interference in the findings of fact is also very limited. 11. In such view of the matter, I do not find any good ground to interfere in the judgment and order of the court below in the present petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. 12. At this stage, the learned counsel for the petitioner prays that some times may be granted to vacate the shop. 13. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case, subject to filing of an undertaking by the petitioner-tenant before the Court below, it is provided that: (1) The tenant-petitioner shall handover the peaceful possession of the premises in question to the landlord-opposite party on or before 31.5.2018. (2) The tenant-petitioner shall file the undertaking before the Court below to the said effect within two weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order; (3) The tenant-petitioner shall pay entire decretal amount within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order; (4) The tenant-petitioner shall pay damages @ Rs. 1,000/-per month by 07th day of every succeeding month and continue to deposit the same in the Court below till 31.5.2018 or till the date he vacates the premises, whichever is earlier and the landlord is at liberty to withdraw the said amount; (5) In the undertaking the tenant-petitioner shall also state that he will not create any interest in favour of the third party in the premises in dispute; (6) Subject to filing of the said undertaking, the tenant-petitioner shall not be evicted from the premises in question till the aforesaid period; (7) It is made clear that in case of default of any of the conditions mentioned herein-above, the protection granted by this Court shall stand vacated automatically. (8) In case the shop is not vacated as per the undertaking given by the petitioner, he shall also be liable for contempt. No order as to costs.