Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 209 (UTT)

Rakesh Verma v. Anil Kala

2021-04-05

SHARAD KUMAR SHARMA

body2021
JUDGMENT : Sharad Kumar Sharma, J. 1. The revision before this Court was preferred by the revisionist under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Causes Courts Act. A challenge has been given to the judgment of 30.10.2017, as has been rendered by the court of learned J.S.C.C./District Judge, Rudraprayag in S.C.C. Suit No. 01 of 2015, Anil Kala vs. Rakesh Verma by virtue of which the suit of the respondent/landlord for rent and eviction was decreed and as a consequence thereto, the petitioner/tenant was directed to vacate the disputed tenement shop. 2. The brief facts, which engaged consideration in the present S.C.C. Revision, were that the plaintiff has leased out the disputed shop to the defendant by virtue of lease deed of 01.07.2000 executed in his favour carrying a monthly rent of Rs. 3,000/- per month. It was further agreed between the parties that the said rent would be subject to a condition of 10% enhancement for each year and ultimately at the time when the suit in question was instituted, the tenement in question was carrying a rent of Rs. 5,000/- per month. 3. The suit, thus instituted was on the ground that the revisionist/tenant, since had violated the terms of the lease, hence his tenancy was terminated by the landlord/respondent by virtue of legal notice issued on 15.01.2015, which was admittedly served upon him, calling upon him to pay the arrears of rent of Rs. 1,80,000/- and also to hand over the vacant possession of the shop in question. The tenancy was expressed to be terminated. 4. The suit was contested and the defendant/revisionist, he has filed the written statement Paper No. 24 Ga/1. He admitted the fact of creation of a tenancy by virtue of the lease deed of 01.07.2000, but he denied the averments made pertaining to the shop, which was made on the Government land and also denied the fact of having committed the default and with regards to the arrears of rent, which was claimed by the plaintiff/respondent herein. The parties lead their respective evidence and particularly, the plaintiff/respondent has placed reliance on Paper No. 8 Ga 2; which was legal notice of terminating the tenancy and the lease agreement Paper No. 11 Ga/1, apart from that the oral testimony of the plaintiff was also recorded as P.W.1. The parties lead their respective evidence and particularly, the plaintiff/respondent has placed reliance on Paper No. 8 Ga 2; which was legal notice of terminating the tenancy and the lease agreement Paper No. 11 Ga/1, apart from that the oral testimony of the plaintiff was also recorded as P.W.1. The defendant/revisionist contested the proceedings recorded his oral statement of D.W.1 and has also adduced one Mr. Roshan Verma as D.W.2 and Nand Kishore Verma, as D.W.3 in support of his contention, who too supported the stand taken as a defence in the written statement Paper No. 21 Ga 1. On the basis of the pleadings exchanged between the parties the point of determination was framed by the learned trial, court which are enumerated herein below:- "6. On the basis of pleadings, evidence & submission of the parties, the following points for determination are involved in the matter:- i. Whether plaintiff & defendant had the relationship of landlord & tenant at the time of institution of the suit? ii. Whether the defendant had committed default in payment of arrears of rent of Rs. 1,80,000? iii. Whether the provisions of U.P. Urban Building (Regulation of Letting, Rent & Eviction) Act 13 of 1972 are not applicable on the shop? iv. Whether the plaintiff terminated the tenancy of the defendant by legal notice dated 15.01.2015? v. Whether this Court has no jurisdiction to decide the matter? vi. Is the plaintiff entitled to get any relief in this case? If yes, then what?" 5. The learned trial court after appreciating the evidence and considering the documents, which was brought on record had ultimately decreed the suit and directed the defendant/revisionist to vacate the premises and to hand over the vacant possession of the shop. But however the determination of the arrears of rent in relation thereto, the defaulted period, it was partially decreed with regards to the arrears and manse profits of Rs. 1,54,000/- as an occupancy charges, which were determined to be payable at the rate of Rs. 5,000/- per month, ever since the date of commission of the default i.e. 25.08.2015. 6. This revision was admitted by this Court on 22.10.2017, subject to the condition of deposit of the entire decreetal amount, the eviction was stayed. 7. 1,54,000/- as an occupancy charges, which were determined to be payable at the rate of Rs. 5,000/- per month, ever since the date of commission of the default i.e. 25.08.2015. 6. This revision was admitted by this Court on 22.10.2017, subject to the condition of deposit of the entire decreetal amount, the eviction was stayed. 7. When the matter was taken up on the previous date i.e. on 24.03.2021 the counsel for the parties, were directed to complete their respective instructions, in order to enable the defendant/revisionist to complete his instructions for the purposes of seeking time to vacate the premises. Today, when the matter was taken up before venturing into the merits of the matter, the counsel for the revisionist very candidly made a statement, based on the instructions, which were received by him from the defendant/revisionist had prayed for two years time to vacate the premises. The said period of time sought for, for vacating the premises was strongly opposed by the learned Senior Advocate Mr. R.P. Nautiyal, contending thereof that since the proceedings itself is pending consideration, since 2015 and after the grant of interim order, the revision too was kept is pending before this Court for last over two years, it would be in the interest that the shortest possible period may be provided to the defendant/revisionist to vacate the premises. 8. Having considered the fact that the creation of a tenancy itself, was as a consequence of the lease agreement, which was entered into on 01.07.2000, is almost now over two decades, that the defendant/revisionist, is running his shop from the tenement in question. Considering the aforesaid length of his occupancy of the shop under the terms of the lease deed and in order to provide him a reasonable time in order to set out his house, in order and a consequence of eviction and to enable him to shift elsewhere, this Court is of the view that one year period would suffice the purpose, because it has been argued by the learned Senior Advocate that during the pendency of revision, the petitioner has also procured another establishment from where he is running his business (this fact is not part of the record, but it is only a statement which has been made by the learned counsel for the respondent, which may not be the basis of this judgment.) 9. Considering the overall tenacity and looking to the equitable relief which the revisionist has sought to be extended, before this Court, this Court is of the view that since the revisionist has already deposited the entire decreetal amount, as directed by the impugned order, hence, this revision would stand dismissed subject to the following conditions:- i. The revisionist by way of an undertaking, in the shape of an affidavit to be filed before the S.C.C. Rudrapur, would submit an undertaking within two weeks, that he would positively vacate the premises within the period of one year from today and hand over the vacant peaceful possession of the same to the respondent/landlord. ii. During this extended period of occupancy of one year, the defendant/revisionist will continue to remit the rent at the rate of Rs. 5,000/-, which was paying at the time of institution of the suit by the plaintiff/respondent and he would ensure to remit the same by 10th of each month. iii. During this period of occupancy, the defendant/revisionist will not change the nature or alter any internal structure and nature of the shop in question in any manner, whatsoever except with a prior written consent from the respondent/landlord. iv. During this extended period of occupancy of one year, the revisionist would not create any sub-tenancy in favour of any person in any manner whatsoever. 10. Subject to the above exceptions, the revision is dismissed.