Allahabad High Court
Satyavan Singh Malik vs Yash And Another on 1 April, 2025
Author: Neeraj Tiwari
Bench: Neeraj Tiwari
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:45032
Court No. - 2
Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 3111 of 2025
Petitioner :- Satyavan Singh Malik
Respondent :- Yash And Another
Counsel for Petitioner :- Amit Krishna
Hon'ble Neeraj Tiwari,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.
2. Present petition has been filed challenging the orders dated 30.01.2025 passed in SCC Revision No. 16 of 2024 and order dated 24.03.2023 passed in SCC Suit No. 03 of 2012.
3. SCC Suit No. 03 of 2012 has been filed by the plaintiff-respondents for recovery of rent as well as eviction of petitioner-defendant from the house in question. After filing of the suit, pleadings have been exchanged and five issues have been framed. The first issue was as to whether, provisions of UP Act No. 13 of 1972 is applicable on the property in dispute or not and it was decided by the court that said Act would not be applicable. Petitioner-defendant has not disputed or challenged the same.
4. The petitioner-defendant is only aggrieved with the decisions on issue No. 2 and 4.
5. Issue No. 2 is as to whether, petitioner-defendant is in default of payment of rent from 01.07.2011 or not.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner-defendant submitted that he is paying rent through money order from June, 2011 and after refusal of the same, he is depositing the rent in Misc. Case No. 108 of 2011(Satyavan Singh Malik Vs. Yash & others) under Section 30 of the UP Act No. 13 of 1972 before Civil Judge(Junior Division), Muzaffar Nagar. He firmly pointed out that once he is depositing the rent in the court under Section 30 of the UP Act No. 13 of 1972, he may not be treated defaulter and further, finding of non-compliance of Order 15 Rule 5 CPC is bad.
7. He further submitted that learned Judge has wrongly decided issue No. 4 also.
8. Issue no. 4 is as to whether respondents-plaintiffs have given notice to petitioner-defendant terminating the tenancy of petitioner-defendant.
9. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there is no dispute that he has received the notice, but it ought to have been given under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (hereinafter, referred to as, Act, 1882), whereas, it has been given under Section 111 of the Act, 1882, therefore, he is entitled for benefit of Section 114 of the Act, 1882. He next submitted that in light of such facts, notice so given by the respondents-plaintiffs may not be treated a valid notice, therefore, issue No. 4 has been wrongly decided.
10. He next submitted that against the impugned order dated 24.03.2023, petitioner-defendant has preferred SCC Revision No. 16 of 2024, which has also been rejected by the revisional court vide second impugned order dated 30.01.2025 without considering the issue so raised. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the judgment of this Court in Writ A No. 3115 of 2000 (Smt. Noorul Subah & Anr. Vs. Addl. District Judge-I, Bijnor & Others) decided on 06.12.2012.
11. I have considered the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner-defendant, perused the record as well as judgment relied upon.
12. From perusal, it is clear that while deciding issue no. 2, specific finding of the court is that on the first date of hearing, it was open for the petitioner-defendant to deposit the entire amount in light of Order 15 Rule 5 CPC, but same has not been deposited, whereas, it is admitted that he has deposited the rent up to June, 2011 through money order and thereafter, remaining rent had been deposited in Misc. Case No. 108 of 2011 under Section 30 of the UP Act No. 13 of 1972 before the Civil Judge(Junior Division), Muzaffar Nagar. Once, it is undisputed between the parties that provisions of Act No. 13 of 1972 is not applicable, petitioner-defendant cannot be given benefit of Section 30 of Act No. 13 of 1972. Apart that petitioner-defendant himself has admitted this fact that he has not deposited any tax of shop including water tax etc.. Therefore, the court has rightly decided issue no. 2 declaring the petitioner-defendant as defaulter in payment of rent.
13. So far as, issue no. 4 is concerned, the only issue before the Court is as to whether, notice has been given under Section 106 or Section 111 of the Act, 1882.
14. I have also perused notice dated 02.01.2012, rent agreement agreement dated 30.04.2004 along with Section 106 and 111 of the Act, 1882.
15. Section 106 of the Act, 1882 provides that in absence of any agreement or contract, notice may be given under Section 106, whereas, Section 111 provides issuance of notice in case of agreement.
16. So far as judgment of Smt. Noorul Subah(Supra) is concerned, once the court has held that notice has to be treated under Section 106 of the Act, 1882, this judgment would not be applicable in the present case.
17. In the rent agreement, there is not provision for eviction of house in case of default in payment of rent. In fact, agreement is absolutely silent on this point, therefore, it would be treated as there is no agreement for consequence of non payment of rent. Therefore, notice should be treated as issued under Section 106 of the Act, 1882.
18. Apart that, in the written statement, this issue has not been raised by the petitioner-defendant.
19. In light of such facts, court has rightly decided issue no. 4 holding that service of notice is valid and sufficient.
20. In view of facts and circumstances of the case, I find no infirmity in the impugned orders dated 24.03.2023 and 30.01.2025.
21. Petition lacks merit and is hereby dismissed.
22. No order as to costs.
Order Date :- 1.4.2025
ADY
