Allahabad High Court
Pramod Kumar Tibdewal vs State Of U.P. And Another on 8 August, 2022
Bench: Salil Kumar Rai
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 5
Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 5434 of 2022
Petitioner :- Pramod Kumar Tibdewal
Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Petitioner :- Shri Krishna Mishra,Ajay Mishra
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Kamlesh Kumar Mishra,Manish Kumar Nigam
Hon'ble Salil Kumar Rai,J.
Supplementary affidavit has filed today is taken on record.
Heard the counsel for the parties.
This is a tenant's petition challenging the judgment and decree dated 14.4.2014 passed by the Small Causes Court, Gorakhpur in Small Causes Case No.31 of 2001 and judgment and order dated 5.4.2022 passed by the Additional District Judge, Court No.3, District Gorakhpur dismissing SCC Revision No.22 of 2016 filed against the decree of the trial court. The SCC Suit No.31 of 2001 was instituted for arrears of rent and eviction of the petitioner-tenant from the suit property.
The two relevant issues raised in the case were regarding the service of notice terminating the tenancy of the petitioner under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 and the other regarding the applicability of Act No.13 of 1972 on the demised premises. The judgment of the courts below indicates that the notice dated 7.4.2001 were sent to the petitioner/tenant through registered post but the same was returned with the endorsement of the postman that the petitioner had refused to receive the same. There is no evidence to rebut the presumption regarding service of notice and the endorsement of the postman on the same. Considering the aforesaid facts, the courts below held that notice was duly served on the petitioner.
So far as the applicability of Act No.13 of 1972 is concerned, the same was relevant in the context that on the plea of the landlord only one month rent was due on the tenant. The tenant had produced the assessment register to prove his plea that the demised premises was assessed for tax in January, 1984. However, the courts below have recorded a finding that the demised premises were not part of the building assessed for tax in January, 1984. For the aforesaid reason, the tax assessment has been rejected by the courts below. The tenant had further argued that one Prem Sahai Pujari was a tenant of demised premises before the petitioner to prove his plea that the constructions are old and, therefore, Act No.13 of 1972 was applicable. The courts below have not accepted the said plea on the ground that the petitioner could not file any reliable evidence to substantiate this fact. After considering the aforesaid circumstances, the courts below have held that Act No.13 of 1972 was not applicable on the demised premises.
The findings recorded by the courts below are concurrent findings of facts and I do not find any illegality or perversity in the aforesaid findings so as to occasion interference by this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
In view of the aforesaid, the petition is liable to be dismissed.
However, considering the circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice, it is directed that the petitioner shall not be evicted from the suit property till 31.3.2023 in pursuance to the order dated 14.4.2014 passed by the Small Causes Court, Gorakhpur in Small Causes Case No.31 of 2001, in case, the petitioner deposits the entire amount due under the decree of the Court within one month from today and continues to deposit the monthly amount fixed by the Small Causes Court by the 10th of every month starting from 10th of September, 2022 and also files an application supported by an affidavit within one month from today giving an undertaking that he shall vacate the suit property by 31.3.2023 and handover possession of the same to the respondents. On failure of the petitioner in giving an undertaking as aforesaid or to vacate the suit property by 31.3.2023 or the pay the decreetal amount and rent as above, the Small Causes Court, Gorakhpur shall be at liberty to proceed with the execution of the decree dated 14.4.2014 on an application for the said purpose filed by the landlord - respondent and shall also ensure that the execution case is disposed of expeditiously.
With the aforesaid directions, the petition is dismissed.
Order Date :- 8.8.2022
Mini
