Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 176 (UTT)

Harish Chand Pant v. Lalit Bhatt

2019-03-07

LOK PAL SINGH

body2019
JUDGMENT : (1) This revision is directed against the judgment and decree dated 16.02.2018, passed by Judge, Small Cause Courts/I Addl. District Judge, Haldwani, in S.C.C. Suit No. 28 of 2015, Lalit Bhatt vs. Harish Chand Pant, whereby the landlord’s suit for recovery of arrears of rent, mesne profits and for eviction of the defendant (revisionist herein) has been decreed. (2) Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents available on record. (3) Brief facts of the case are that, plaintiff-respondent is the owner and landlord of the building situated near L.I.C.-II, Pili Kothi, Kaladungi Road, Mukhani, Haldwani, District Nainital. Defendant-revisionist was his tenant in one shop, measuring 12 feet x 18 feet, situated on the southern side of the said building. The property in dispute was let out in the year 1995 and the rate of rent was fixed at Rs.500/- per month, excluding taxes. Subsequently, the rent was enhanced from time to time. The defendant-respondent is tenant over the property in question on the rent at the rate of Rs.1,300/- per month excluding taxes. It is contended that the property in dispute is outside the limits of Nagar Palika and, as such, the provisions of U.P. Act no. 13 of 1972 are not applicable to it. It is alleged that the defendant has not paid rent since February 2014. It is also alleged in the plaint that plaintiff told the defendant to vacate the property in question many a times, but the defendant is not interested in vacating the same. Therefore, after giving notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, the suit was filed for eviction of the defendant and also for realization of arrears of rent and mesne profits. (4) Tenant-revisionist Mr. Harish Chand Pant and landlord-respondent Mr. Lalit Bhatt both are present in the Court duly identified by their respective counsel. (5) Learned counsel for the tenant-revisionist, on the instructions received from his client, fairly submitted that the revisionist is ready to handover the vacant and peaceful possession of the premises in question to the landlord-respondent, but some reasonable time be granted to the revisionist to do the same. The landlord-respondent submits that he has no objection to the said proposal, but the tenant-revisionist be directed to enhance the rate of rent on the property in question. The landlord-respondent submits that he has no objection to the said proposal, but the tenant-revisionist be directed to enhance the rate of rent on the property in question. (6) The tenant-revisionist has handed over a cheque amounting to Rs.6,500/- to the landlord-respondent in the Court. The said amount is in regard to the decreetal amount for a period of five months. (7) In view of the above, the tenant-revisionist is granted time upto 28.02.2021 to handover peaceful possession of the premises in question to the respondent-landlord subject to the revisionist giving an undertaking within one month from today before the Judge, Small Cause Court to the following effect: (1) The revisionist shall file an undertaking before the Judge, Small Cause Court, Haldwani on or before 06.04.2019 that he shall vacate the premises in question on or before 28.02.2021 and handover vacant and peaceful possession of the premises in question to the landlord. (2) The revisionist should undertake to deposit the entire decretal amount before the Judge, Small Cause Court within a period of 45 days from today subject to adjustment of any amount already deposited before the court below as well as the amount paid today before this Court. (3) The revisionist should continue to pay the rent for the use and occupation of the premises in question on each succeeding month till vacation of the accommodation on 7th day of each month. He shall pay the enhanced rent at the rate of Rs.2000/- per month to the landlord from 01.03.2019. (4) The revisionist shall not induct any other person in the premises in question. (5) In the event of default of any of the aforesaid conditions, the revisionist shall not be entitled to continue in the premises in question up to 28.02.2021 and the decree shall be executed forthwith. (8) The judgment and decree dated 16.02.2018, passed by Judge, Small Cause Courts/I Addl. District Judge, Haldwani, in S.C.C. Suit No. 28 of 2015, Lalit Bhatt vs. Harish Chand Pant is modified accordingly. The civil revision stands partly allowed. Lower Court Record be sent back to the court below forthwith. No order as to costs.