Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 430 (UTT)

Pradeep Kumar v. Radhemohan Sharma

2024-06-21

RAKESH THAPLIYAL

body2024
JUDGMENT : (Rakesh Thapliyal, J.) : 1. A suit for arrears of rent, eviction and mesne profit was preferred by the respondent/plaintiff being an owner and landlord of the property in question, registered as SCC Suit No. 21 of 2024, Radhemohan Sharma Vs. Pradeep Kumar against the petitioner/defendant on the ground that the property in question was constructed in the year 1994-95, therefore the provisions of Act No. 13 of 1972 are not applicable and prayed for eviction and arrears of rent. 2. During the pendency of the Suit, an amendment was sought in the plaint to the effect that the property in question is the part of the property of Vasundhara Hotel and Rai Surajmal Bahadur Charitable Trust, Calcutta, was the owner in possession of the same. The plaintiff acquired the property by registered lease deed dated 24.03.1994 and since the building is in dilapidated condition, the plaintiff was granted rights in the lease to get the property vacated from the tenants and further to raise new construction after demolition the old structure and has raised new building and the construction was completed in three phases, in the year 1994-95, 1995-96 and 1996-97. 3. It is submitted that the property in question was leased out to the defendant in the year 1996. In the SCC Suit, the petitioner/defendant filed the written statement, submits that the property is under the tenancy of the defendant and his uncle Satya Prakash and the tenancy of Satya Prakash has never been terminated and the property in question is the part of the huge property which was also in the name of Seth Surajmal Charitable Trust and Dharamshala. 4. It is further contended in the written statement that in the year 2001, the property was recorded in Municipal record as khata No. 44, Mohalla Ramghat. It is also contended in the written statement that the defendant/petitioner and his uncle have paid Rs. 6,75,000/- to the plaintiff on his request for regularization of tenancy and Rs. 50,000/- through cheque on 14.09.1996. 5. It is also contended that the property was recorded in the name of Satya Prakash, the uncle of petitioner/defendant in municipal assessment of 1979. It is also contended in the written statement that the defendant/petitioner and his uncle have paid Rs. 6,75,000/- to the plaintiff on his request for regularization of tenancy and Rs. 50,000/- through cheque on 14.09.1996. 5. It is also contended that the property was recorded in the name of Satya Prakash, the uncle of petitioner/defendant in municipal assessment of 1979. In reply to the amended plaint, the additional written statement was also filed by stating therein that Haridwar Development Authority was constituted under the U.P. Urban Planning Development Act, 1973 and any construction could only be raised after getting sanctioned map from the Development Authority. Thereafter, the plaintiff/respondent filed their replica. 6. It is submitted that as many as 8 points of determination in the suit were framed by the Judge, Small Causes Courts and numerous documentary evidence were filed by the plaintiff including copy of notice dated 05.05.2014 and other relevant documents including rent agreement dated 07.03.2002, original lease receipt, assessment orders, copies of different bills, etc. etc. On the other side, the sole defendant had also filed municipal assessment of 01.04.1979 till 31.03.1988 and other relevant document with photographs. 7. After examining the witnesses and their cross examination, the Judge, Small Causes Courts/Civil Judge (SD), Haridwar, decreed the SCC Suit, filed by the respondent/plaintiff, bearing SSC Suit No. 21 of 2014 vide judgment dated 30.11.2022. 8. Being aggrieved with the judgment dated 30.11.2022, passed by the Judge, Small Causes Courts, the petitioner/defendant preferred SCC Revision under Section 25 of the Provincial of Small Causes Act, 1887, being SCC Revision No. 29 of 2022 and an application under Order 14 Rule 5 read with Section 151 of CPC was moved by the petitioner/defendant, seeking framing of additional issues to the effect, as to whether the plaintiff has got any map sanctioned from the Development Authority in respect of his alleged new construction of the property involved and further, as to whether the documents filed by the plaintiff were in respect of the same property. The Revisional Court dismissed the application vide order dated 09.11.2023, which was challenged in a Writ Petition (M/S) No. 3364 of 2023. Thereafter, the Revisional Court had concurred the findings and conclusion recorded by the Judge, Small Causes Courts and being aggrieved with the same, present writ petition has been preferred. 9. The Revisional Court dismissed the application vide order dated 09.11.2023, which was challenged in a Writ Petition (M/S) No. 3364 of 2023. Thereafter, the Revisional Court had concurred the findings and conclusion recorded by the Judge, Small Causes Courts and being aggrieved with the same, present writ petition has been preferred. 9. Undisputedly, the Revisional Court had concurred the findings and conclusion recorded by the Judge, Small Causes Court, consequently, during the course of argument, the learned counsel for the petitioner, on instructions, submits that the petitioner is ready to vacate the property in question, however he may be granted appropriate time to vacate the property in question. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that 2 years may be granted to the petitioner to vacate the shop in question which the learned counsel for the respondent has not objected and in fact, the learned counsel for the respondent gave his concurrence for such an undertaking to the petitioner to vacate the shop in question. 11. Accordingly, the writ petition is being disposed of finally with the following directions:- (i) The petitioner shall vacate the shop in question within two years from today. (ii) The petitioner shall pay the monthly rent regularly by 7th of each month, and will also clear arrears of rent on or before vacating the shop in question. (iii) The petitioner shall not change the nature of the shop in question and will not alienate the same. (iv) The petitioner shall file an undertaking in the form of an affidavit before the Judge, Small Causes Courts//Civil Judge (SD), Haridwar within a period of three weeks from today, containing the aforesaid undertakings. (v) It is also made clear that if the petitioner violates any such undertaking as given above, the respondent is free to avail appropriate remedy as per law.