Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 1518 (ALL)

Rishabh Agrawal v. Om Prakash Chaurasiya

2018-07-09

VIVEK KUMAR BIRLA

body2018
JUDGMENT : Vivek Kumar Birla, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist-tenant and Sri Manish Tandon, learned counsel appearing for the opposite party-landlord and perused the record. 2. Present revision has been filed challenging the judgment and order dated 11.4.2018 passed by the Additional District Judge, Court No. 1, Kanpur Nagar in SCC Suit No. 92 of 2016, Om Prakash Chaurasiya vs. Rishabh Agrawal. 3. The shop in question was leased out to the tenant-revisionist for a period of 11 months by rent deed dated 21.5.2015 from 15.5.2015 to 14.4.2016 on a rent of Rs. 5,000/-. The provisions of Act 1972 are admittedly not applicable in the present case. A legal notice for termination of tenancy was given to the revisionist on 26.7.2016, acceptance whereof is not in dispute. The landlord filed a suit and claimed damages at the rate of Rs. 6,000/- for future use. The suit was allowed and damages at the rate of Rs. 6,000/- were awarded till the handing over of the possession of the shop in dispute 4. Challenging the aforesaid judgment, submission of the learned counsel for the revisionist is that as per agreement dated 21.5.2015 two months prior notice was required to be given to the tenant whereas in the present case 30 days notice was given on 26.7.2016, which is contrary to the agreement and therefore, the suit was premature. It was further submitted that compensation awarded at the rate of Rs. 6,000/- is wholly illegal, unwarranted and unjustified. Although the ground has not been taken in the present case but it was submitted that once the landlord accepted the rent for the months of May, June and July, 2015, tenancy stood renewed for another period of 11 months and the revisionist has also deposited the rent under Section 30 of the Act. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for the opposite party has supported the impugned order and submitted that when the provisions of the Act 13 of 1972 are not applicable in the present case and the agreement has already expired, notice of 30 days under Section 106 of the T.P. Act was sufficient and valid notice, service whereof is not in dispute. Per contra, learned counsel for the opposite party has supported the impugned order and submitted that when the provisions of the Act 13 of 1972 are not applicable in the present case and the agreement has already expired, notice of 30 days under Section 106 of the T.P. Act was sufficient and valid notice, service whereof is not in dispute. It is further submitted that since ownership of the landlord was also disputed by the revisionist and has raised a dispute regarding tenant landlord relationship, the defence that has been taken by the revisionist cannot be accepted in law. He has placed reliance on a judgment of this Court rendered in the case of Smt. Aamna Khan vs. Smt. Anita Burman, 2017 (3) ARC 813. 6. I have considered the submissions and perused the record. 7. Facts of the present case as noted above are not in dispute. The aforesaid notice dated 26.7.2016 was given to the tenant-revisionist, a receipt wherein is not in dispute. He has also sought to dispute the validity of the agreement. After expiry of the agreement, the tenant-revisionist became tenant on month to month rent and therefore, a valid notice of 30 days was given by the landlord under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. Apart from that, notice was given on 26.7.2016 and suit was filed on 28.11.2016 that is much after expiry of two months even as provided under the agreement. As such, I do not find any good ground to interfere in the judgment and order of the court below. 8. Insofar as the enhancement of compensation at the rate of Rs. 6,000/- is concerned, it is not in dispute that shop in question was given on lease in the year 2015 at the rate of Rs. 5,000/- and as such after three years enhancement from Rs. 5,000/- to Rs. 6,000/- cannot be said to be unreasonable so as to attract any interference in the same by this Court. 9. In such view of the matter, I do not find any legal infirmity or jurisdictional error in the judgment and order of the court below. 10. Present revision is accordingly dismissed. 11. At this stage, learned counsel for the tenant-revisionist prays that six months time may be granted to vacate the shop in question. 12. 9. In such view of the matter, I do not find any legal infirmity or jurisdictional error in the judgment and order of the court below. 10. Present revision is accordingly dismissed. 11. At this stage, learned counsel for the tenant-revisionist prays that six months time may be granted to vacate the shop in question. 12. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case, subject to filing of an undertaking by the tenant-revisionist before the Court below, it is provided that: (1) The tenant-revisionist shall handover the peaceful possession of the shop in question to the landlord-opposite party on or before 31.1.2019. (2) The tenant-revisionist 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-revisionist 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-revisionist shall pay damages @ Rs. 6,000/- per month by 07th day of every succeeding month and continue to deposit the same in the Court below till 31.1.2019 or till the date he vacates the shop in question, whichever is earlier and the landlord is at liberty to withdraw the said amount. (5) In the undertaking the tenant-revisionist 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-revisionist shall not be evicted from the shop 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 in question is not vacated as per the undertaking given by the revisionist, he shall also be liable for contempt. 13. There shall be no order as to costs.