Vinod Kumar And Another vs State Of U.P. And 5 Others
2023 Latest Caselaw 9396 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 2
 

 
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 5498 of 2023
 

 
Petitioner :- Vinod Kumar And Another
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 5 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Manoj Kumar Mathur
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
 

 
Hon'ble Neeraj Tiwari,J.

Heard learned counsel for petitioners and learned standing counsel for State-respondents.

Present petition has been filed seeking quashing of impugned judgment and order dated 30.01.2023 passed by Upper District Judge Moradabad revision no. 09/2018 in CNR No. UPM0010069202018 (Vinod and another vs. Ram Saran and others) and order dated 11.05.2018 passed by Hon'ble Trial Court, Judge Small Cause Court, Moradabad in S.C.C. Suit No. 04/2006 in Satya Prakash Rastogi vs. Smt. Shakultala Devi and others.

Learned counsel for petitioners submitted that petitioners have deposited Rs. 5800/- fully in accordance with Section 20(4) of Act No. 13 of 1972, but S.C.C. Court has passed impugned order dated 11.05.2018 on the ground that petitioners have not complied the provisions of Section 20(4) of Act No. 13 of 1972. He further submitted that against said order, petitioners have preferred revision, which was also dismissed vide order dated 30.01.2023 on same ground, therefore, orders are bad and liable to be set aside.

I have considered the submissions of counsel for petitioners and perused the records as well as impugned orders.

In judgment and order of S.C.C. Court dated 30.01.2023, though, there is finding that petitioners have deposited Rs. 5800/-, but they have not disclosed the description of amount in terms of Section 20(4) of Act No. 13 of 1972 i.e. bifurcation of amount in rent, 9% interest and landlord cost. Further, against the order of S.C.C. Court, petitioners have also preferred revision. In the revision also, there is no description of amount as per Section 20(4) of Act No. 13 of 1972 and accordingly, revision was dismissed. Even in this petition too, there is no description or bifurcation about the deposit of money i.e. Rs. 5800/- as required under Section 20(4) of Act No. 13 of 1972.

From the perusal of Section 20(4) of Act No. 13 of 1972, it is very much clear that it is mandatorily required to deposit the rent, 9% interest and landlord cost, which is absolutely missing in this case. It is also undisputed that as on date, shop in question has been vacated and possession has been given to landlord.

Under such facts of the case, writ petition lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed.

No order as to costs.

Order Date :- 31.3.2023

Sartaj