Allahabad High Court
Veena Gupta vs Smt. Aruna Singh on 13 May, 2024
Author: Manish Mathur
Bench: Manish Mathur
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:36553
Court No. - 17
Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 2354 of 2024
Petitioner :- Veena Gupta
Respondent :- Smt. Aruna Singh
Counsel for Petitioner :- Sudhir Kumar Srivastava,Ashish Kumar Singh,Pal Singh Yadav
Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for petitioner. In view of order being passed, notices to opposite party stands dispensed with.
2. Petition under Article 227 of Constitution of India has been filed challenging order dated 6th January, 2024 passed in SCC Suit No. 36 of 2016 instituted by the opposite party as land lord for arrears of rent and ejectment. Also under challenge is the subsequent order dated 6th February, 2024 passed in the said S.C.C. proceedings.
3. It has been submitted that provisions of Act No.13 of 1972 are inapplicable on the premises in question since monthly rent exceeds Rs. 2000/- per month . It is submitted that during course of proceedings, the petitioner being tenant and as defendant in the suit proceedings had preferred applications Ga-21, Ga-22 and Ga-24. Application No. Ga-21 sought a prayer under Section 114 of the transfer of Property Act for deposit of arrears of monthly rent along with interest and full cost of the suit within a period of 15 days as required as per directions of the court. Application No. Ga-22 however was filed for seeking a direction to the land lord for production of the original written agreement dated 8th December, 2005 and application No. Ga-24 seeking summoning of the plaintiff for re-examination to discover and obtain proper proof.
4. It has been submitted that the aforesaid applications were filed in view of deposition of the plaintiff during evidence claiming that the petitioners/defendant was a tenant of the property in question in pursuance of written agreement, the original of which was never produced and therefore the applications Ga-22 and Ga-24 were filed seeking a direction to the plaintiff to submit the original rent agreement between the parties and for re-examination of plaintiff on that ground. The application Ga-21 was also preferred which has been deferred till final disposal of the proceedings. It is submitted that since petitioner as tenant is ready and willing to make deposit of the entire arrears as demanded along with interest and cost of suit, it was incumbent upon the court concerned to have considered the said application and not to have deferred the same.
5. Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for petitioner and perusal of material on record, particularly the impugned orders, it is evident that the applications Ga-22 and Ga-24 have been rejected on the ground that it is for the plaintiff to produce the evidence on which claim is based and the aforesaid aspect can be considered at the time of final judgment. Another reasoning is that the suit proceedings are now at the stage of judgment with evidence being closed and therefore there is no occasion to entertain such an application at this stage. The application No. Ga- 21 has been deferred for adjudication at the time of final disposal.
6. It is thus evident from the judgment of trial court that the petitioner as defendant has filed applications Ga-22 and Ga-24 seeking a direction to the plaintiff to submit evidence to corroborate her case. In the considered opinion of this Court, the trial court has correctly rejected the said applications since it is for the plaintiff to succeed on its own basis and not on the weakness of the defendant. In case trial court comes to a conclusion that the plaintiff has not been able to substantiate or corroborate the submissions with substantive evidence, it is always open for the trial court to take a decision on that aspect. Therefore no exception can be taken to the reasoning indicated by trial court rejecting applications Ga-22 and Ga-24.
7. So far as application No. Ga-21 is concerned, it is evident that the tenant as a defendant in suit for arrears of rent and ejectment is entitled to make such an application requiring deposit of arrears of rent along with interest and cost of suit.
8. In view of order under challenge, the trial court is directed to take a decision with regard to application No. Ga-21 at the time of final judgment and to grant benefit of the same in case it is so warranted under law. No adverse inference shall be taken against the petitioner as a tenant on the said application in pursuance of impugned order.
9. With the aforesaid directions, the petition stands disposed of.
Order Date :- 13.5.2024
prabhat
