Subhash Kumar Agarwal vs Learned Additional District Judge, ...
2024 Latest Caselaw 36478 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Subhash Kumar Agarwal vs Learned Additional District Judge, ... on 6 November, 2024

Author: Pankaj Bhatia

Bench: Pankaj Bhatia

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:73203
 
Court No. - 7
 

 
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 9792 of 2024
 

 
Petitioner :- Subhash Kumar Agarwal
 
Respondent :- Learned Additional District Judge, Court No. 1, Lucknow And Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Anurag Srivastava,Kabir Ahmad Khan
 
Counsel for Respondent :- Abhinav Trivedi,Ajit Kumar Dwivedi,Anupam Kumar,Ashish Kumar Pathak
 

 
Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.
 

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the respondent-landlord and perused the material available on record.

2. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 23.08.2018 passed in S.C.C. Suit, whereby a decree of eviction and mesne profits has been passed against the petitioner as well as the common judgment dated 06.07.2024 passed by the Revisional Court, whereby the revision preferred by the petitioner was dismissed and the revision preferred by the Land-lord was partly allowed.

3. The contention of the counsel for the petitioner is that the rent of the premises was Rs.675/-, however, based upon a forged document, allegedly got executed by the petitioner on misrepresentation, the rate of rent was shown as Rs.2500/-.

4. The perusal of the two orders reveal that the petitioner as a tenant had not filed document in support of his pleading, even in the revision, no specific ground was raised with regard to non filing of the document. The SCC Court framed as many as seven issues and decided the same against the tenant. The Revisional Court has rightly dismissed the revision as no specific ground warranting interference in the revisional jurisdiction was raised. Even in the present writ petition, there is no pleading that the evidence was filed but was wrongly held by the trial Court to have not been filed. In view thereof, no good ground for interference is made out.

5. The counsel for the petitioner based upon the instructions seeks one and half year time to vacate the premises in question.

6. The counsel for the respondent-landlord based upon the instructions states that in case the petitioner vacates the premises within six months, the landlord would forego the decree of mesne profit passed in his favour.

7. In view of the said two submissions, the petition is disposed of directing the petitioner to vacate the premises in question within a period of seven months from today i.e. on or before 01.06.2025. The petitioner shall file an undertaking before the trial Court, undertaking to vacate the premises in question on or before 01.06.2025 and shall hand over the vacant possession of the premises in question to the landlord and to no one else. In case, the petitioner vacates the premises in question by 01.06.2025, the decree of mesne profits in favour of the landlord shall stand nullified and shall not be put to execution. In case, the undertaking is not filed by the petitioner within a period of three weeks from today as directed above, the landlord would be at liberty to execute the entire decree including the decree of mesne profits in accordance with law.

Order Date :- 6.11.2024

Arun