Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 682 (ALL)

RAMESH KUMAR SACHDEV v. RAKESH KUMAR RASTOGI

2018-03-21

SIDDHARTH

body2018
JUDGMENT Hon’ble Siddharth, J.—Heard Ms. Akansha Sharma, learned Counsel for the revisionist and Sri Anoop Trivedi, learned Counsel for the respondents. 2. This Civil Revision under Section-25 of the Provincial Small Causes Court Act has been preferred against the Judgment and Decree dated 6.2.2013, passed by Sri N.A. Abbasi, Judge, Small Causes Court/Additional District Judge, Court No. 10, Kanpur Nagar in SCC Suit No. 155/2009 (Rakesh Kumar Rastogi v. Ramesh Kumar Sachdev and another). 3. The Suit of the plaintiff-respondent has been decreed on the ground of default in the payment of rent, material alteration and sub-tenancy. Sub tenancy is in respect of a separate room/servant quarter. Material alteration is alleged to be an Iron Angle affixed by the tenant for running the water pipe by digging a hole in the wall/roof. 4. At the very outset, the leaned Counsel for the revisionists has argued that she is only challenging the part of the decree of the trial Court regarding the damages directed to be paid by the revisionists to the opposite party. She has stated that regarding the direction to vacate the premises, she has no grievance and has prayed that if some more time is granted, the revisionist shall vacate the premises in dispute peacefully. 5. The learned Counsel for the revisionists has argued that the leaned trial Court has erred in directing the payment of Rs.350/- per day as damages from 20.10.2009 by the defendants-revisionists to the plaintiff-respondent till the date of actual delivery of possession of the disputed premises to the plaintiff-respondent, when the actual rent of the property as per the own case of plaintiff-respondent was Rs.166/- per month. 6. Reliance has been placed on the Judgment in the case of Union of India and others v. Smt. Urmila Rani Gaur and others, ARC 1983(2) 304, wherein this Court held that in a Suit for ejectment, damages should be awarded at the rent of rent. 7. Reliance has been placed upon the case of Mahesh Lalwani v. Sardar Uttar Singh, ARC 1987(1) 321, wherein this Court held that : “8. It is not disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the permises in question were let out by the plaintiff to the defendant on a monthly rent of Rs. 500. 7. Reliance has been placed upon the case of Mahesh Lalwani v. Sardar Uttar Singh, ARC 1987(1) 321, wherein this Court held that : “8. It is not disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the permises in question were let out by the plaintiff to the defendant on a monthly rent of Rs. 500. He, however, urged that since the permises in question were not governed by the provisions of Uttar Pradesh Act No. 13 of 1972, and as such the damages which the plaintiff was entitled to get, would be the amount which he had claimed in the notice for use and occupation in respect of the premises in question. I do not find any merit in this contention and I am of opinion that the damages which the plaintiff claimed from the defendant in the suit should be equal to such amount which the plaintiff was realising as rent of the premises from the defendant.No excess amount could be awarded by way of penalty for non-compliance of the notice for ejectment. The premises in question may not be governed by the provisions of Rent Control Act but the amount which the plaintiff-landlord would be entitled to get from the defendant, would be equal to the monthly rent which the plaintiff was reaslising from the defendant.” 8. Reliance has also been placed upon the Judgment in the case of Sushila Sharma v. 13th A.D.J., Ghaziabad and others, 2000 (39) ALR 123, wherein this Court held that in case an accommodation in dispute is governed by the provisions of Uttar Pradesh Act No. 13/1972, the damages would be awarded at the rate of rent but if the Act is not applicable, the damages can be awarded at the market rate. 9. The last Judgment relied upon the Counsel for the revisionist is State Bank of India v. Shankar Dayal Agarwal, 2010 (2) ARC 378, wherein this Court has held that in case the accommodation is governed by the provisions of U.P.Act No. 13 of 1972, the damages are to be awarded at the rate of monthly rent, but where the Act is not applicable, the damages are to be awarded on the basis of the market rate. 10. 10. The learned Counsel for the plaintiff-respondent has relied upon a Judgment in the case of Umesh Kumar v. Arun Kumar and others, dated 5.12.2012, passed in Writ-A No. 63148 of 2012, which is regarding the dispute of material alteration and has no relevance for deciding the dispute raised by the Counsel for the revisionist. 11. A perusal of the Judgment relied upon the Counsel for the defendants-revisionists shows that the provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Act No. 13 of 1972 are applicable on the premises in dispute since as per the own case of the plaintiff proceedings under Sections 12/16 (1) (b) of Uttar Pradesh Ac No. 13/1972 and under Section 21(1)(a) of the Act aforesaid regarding the premises in dispute were initiated. 12. Therefore, in view of the legal position stated above, the decree of the Court below is modified to the extent that the plaintiff-respondent shall be entitled to the damages only at the rate of rent of the accommodation in dispute i.e., Rs.166/- per month with 7% simple interest. The other terms and conditions of the decree shall remain intact. The defendants-revisionists are granted 3 months time to vacate the Suit property. The amount deposited by the revisionists shall be adjusted and /or refunded as per this order. 13. The revision is partly allowed to the extent stated above.