Allahabad High Court
Santosh Kumar Gupta vs Raj Kumar Gupta on 17 November, 2025
Author: Rohit Ranjan Agarwal
Bench: Rohit Ranjan Agarwal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:204106
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 14190 of 2025
Santosh Kumar Gupta
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
Raj Kumar Gupta
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s)
:
Dinesh Kumar Misra
Counsel for Respondent(s)
:
Court No. - 36
HON'BLE ROHIT RANJAN AGARWAL, J.
1. Petitioner, before this Court, is tenant of shop in dispute rented at monthly rent of Rs.704/-. As default was committed in payment of rent from 01.01.2018 to 28.02.2019, notice of eviction was given by plaintiff-landlord and, thereafter, S.C.C. Suit No. 24 of 2019 was filed. In the said suit, following issues were framed:-
"1- ???? ???? ??? ????????? ?? ???? ???? ????? ??? ????????? ?? ????? ??????? ????
2- ???? ??????? ????? ?? ?????? ??????? 13 ??? 1972 ?? ???????? ???? ???? ????
3- ???? ???? ?????? ????????? ?? ???? ??? ????? ???? ?? ?
4- ???? ??? ?????? ?? ??????? ???? ?? ??????? ???"
2. Issue no. 1 was in regard to relationship of landlord and tenant while Issue No. 2 was as to whether Act No. 13 of 1972 was applicable and the third issue was as to whether notice under Section 106 of Transfer of Property Act was served upon the tenant or not.
3. The trial court while deciding the issue found that landlord tenant relation was between the parties and further held that assessment as claimed by plaintiff-landlord is of the year 2008 while the tenant-defendant claimed that shop was newly constructed in the year 1990 and let out to him and he was in tenancy since then. According to tenant, the rent deed was registered on 28.02.1996. The trial court finding that construction was made after 26.04.1985 proceeded to hold that Act No. 13 of 1972 was not applicable. The trial court decreed the suit for eviction and arrears of rent on 11.09.2024. Aggrieved by said judgment, S.C.C. Revision No. 129 of 2024 was filed which has been dismissed on 06.02.2025.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the construction is not new and Issue No. 2 has wrongly been decided by trial court and Act No. 13 of 1972 is applicable.
5. After hearing learned counsel for petitioner and perusing the material on record, it is clear that both the courts below have recorded concurrent finding of fact that first assessment was made in the year 2008. The courts below have also recorded finding that in cross-examination, the tenant-petitioner had admitted the tenancy from 01.10.1990 of the shop in question which was newly constructed.
6. Once the tenant himself has admitted the fact that he was in tenancy since 1990 and rent written agreement was executed in 1996 then too the case is not covered under Act No. 13 of 1972 as the shop in question was not constructed prior to 26.04.1985. Both the courts below have rightly decided the issue and found the Act No. 13 of 1972 not to be applicable. Once notice to quit was served and petitioner was in arrears of rent, the courts below have rightly decreed the suit for arrears and ejectment.
7. No case for interference is made out.
8. Writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed.
9. Registrar (Compliance) to transmit a copy of this order to court below, within 48 hours.
(Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,J.)
November 17, 2025
V.S.Singh
