Allahabad High Court
Ashok Kumar Gupta vs Smt. Usha Rani Chhabra (Since Deceased) ... on 13 October, 2025
Author: Rohit Ranjan Agarwal
Bench: Rohit Ranjan Agarwal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:181837
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
S.C.C. REVISION No. - 130 of 2025
Ashok Kumar Gupta
.....Revisionist(s)
Versus
Smt. Usha Rani Chhabra (Since Deceased) And 14 Others
.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Revisionist(s)
:
Arpit Agarwal, Rahul Kumar Pal, Rahul Saxena
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)
:
Sachin Srivastava, Sumit Daga
Court No. - 36
HON'BLE ROHIT RANJAN AGARWAL, J.
1. Petitioner before this Court is a tenant of the accommodation let out by one Ram Murti, father of respondent no. 6. A notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act was given to the revisionist for vacating the premises on 24.5.2013 on the ground that the tenant has defaulted the payment of rent from 1.1.2011. Thereafter, a SCC Suit No. 55 of 2013 was filed. The revisionist contested the said suit and in paragraph no. 1 of the written statement he denied the title of Ram Murti, the landlord, however, in paragraph no. 18 of the additional pleas the tenancy has been accepted by the revisionist and it was averred that it was let out by Ram Murti in the year 1998-99 to his father Jagneshwar Dayal Gupta for a rent of Rs. 300/- per month. The trial court had framed the following issues;
"1. ???? ?????? ??? ?????? ??????????? 2 ??3 ???????? ????????? ?? ????? ??????? ?? ??? ????????? ???? ?? ?????????? ???????? ????????? ?? ??? ???? ?????? ?????? ??? ?????? ??????????? 2 ??3 ?????????? ??? ??? ????????? ?????? 1 ??? 3500/- ????? ???????? ?? ????????? ???
2. ???? ?????? ?????? ????????? ?????? 1 ?? ?????? 24.05.2013 ?? ???? 106 ??????? ????? ??????? ?? ??????? ?? ??? ????? ?? ?????????? ?????? ?? ??? ??? ????? ????_????? ???
3. ???? ???????? ????????? ?? ??????? ?????? 13 ?? 1972 ?? ???????? ???? ???? ????
4. ???? ?????? ?? ??? ???? 7 ???? 11 ?????? ?? ????? ???
5. ???? ?????? ?????? ??? ?? ???? ????????? ?? ???? ?????????? ???? ??? ???
6. ???? ????????? ?????? 1 ?????? ??????? ?????? ??? ? ???? ?? ??? ?? ??? ??, ???? ???? ?? ?????? ??????? ???? 15 ???? 5 ?????? ?? ??????? ?????? ???? ???? ????? ?? ??? ???? ???? ?? ?????? ?????? ?? ??? ???
7. ???? ????????? ?????? 1 ?????? ?? ????? ????? ???? ?? ??????? ???
8. ???? ?????? ??????? ?? ??? ??? ?????? ????? ?????? ???? ?? ??????? ????"
2. Issue no. 1 was in regard to whether the father of plaintiff and defendant nos. 2 and 3 was the landlord of the premises in dispute and defendant no. 1 was the tenant at the rent of Rs. 3500/- per month. The issue no. 2 was in regard to notice issued under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act to defendant no. 1. The issue no. 3 framed as to whether the provisions of Act No. 13 of 1972 is applicable in the matter or not.
3. The trial court returned a finding by holding that Ram Murti was the owner landlord of the premises in dispute and the premises in question was let out to the revisionist at the monthly rent of Rs. 3500/- and further the provisions of the Act No. 13 of 1972 are not applicable in the present matter. The suit was decreed on 6.9.2025 and order of eviction and arrears of rent was passed. Hence, present revision.
4. Sri Arpit Agarwal, learned counsel for the revisionist, submits that there was categorical denial of the fact that the premises in dispute was let out to the revisionist, in fact it was let out to his father Jagneshwar Dayal Gupta by the father of plaintiff respondents. He further submits that the trial court has wrongly returned the finding that father and sons are the family members and covered under the definition of Family, as provided under the Act No. 13 of 1972. According to him, once the provisions of Act No. 13 of 1972 were not applicable, the said finding should not have been returned by the trial court.
5. He next contended that Jagneshwar Dayal Gupta in the year 2013 before institution of eviction suit, had filed a suit against Ram Murti, the landlord, which was subsequently withdrawn by him. He further submits that the rent of the premises in question was received by Madhu Vermani and as the landlord Ram Murti was living with his son at Jhansi, he was not aware about the death of landlord. He further contends that the rent was being deposited under Section 30 of the Act No. 13 of 1972.
6. Sri Sumit Daga, learned counsel for the respondents, submits that there was contradiction in the written statement filed by the revisionist as in paragraph no. 1 the tenant had denied the tile of landlord and in paragraph no. 18 he has specifically stated that the premises in question was let out to his father by Ram Murti. According to him, the rent was deposited by Jagneswar Dayal Gupta under Section 30 of the Act of 1972 after notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act was issued in the year 2013 and after the death of Jagneswar Dayal Gupta no rent has been deposited by the revisionist. According to him the tenant has admitted the tenancy but no rent has been deposited by him.
7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record. The short question which needs to be adjudicated by this Court is as to whether the revisionist is the tenant of the accommodation in question and whether the Act No. 13 of 1972 is applicable or not.
8. From pleadings of the parties made before the trial court, it is evident that the revisionist had denied the title of Ram Murti in his written statement. At the outset, in paragraph no. 1, he has stated that Ram Murti is not the owner of the accommodation in dispute. He has further denied that Ram Murti had let out the accommodation to the revisionist and he is not a tenant. However, in the additional pleas in paragraph no. 18 there is admission that accommodation in question was let out by Ram Murti to his father Jagneswar Dayal Gupta in the year 1998-99 at the monthly rent of Rs. 300/-. The contradiction continued and the trial court after evaluating the pleadings and evidences submitted by both the parties, concluded that Act No. 13 of 1972 was not applicable in the matter and monthly rent at the rate of Rs. 3500/- is liable to be paid by the revisionist. The trial court also found that Ram Murti was the owner of the premises in dispute and the same was being succeeded by his heirs after his death.
9. Once such a finding has been returned by the trial court, no case for interference is made out by this Court. Submission raised by learned counsel for the revisionist as to the discrepancy in the judgment of the trial court, this Court finds that the trial court has recorded a clear finding that under the definition of family as provided under the Act No. 13 of 1972 father and son comes under the definition of family. The said finding would not affect the case as revisionist is a tenant in possession and had defaulted in payment of rent which he was to be deposited at the rate of Rs. 3500/- per month.
10. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, no case for interference is made out. Revision fails and is hereby dismissed.
11. After dismissal of revision, learned counsel for revisionist prays that some reasonable time may be granted to the revisionist for vacating the premises in dispute.
12. Looking to the facts of the case as revisionist is using the premises in question for a long time, one year time is granted to him to vacate the premises in dispute, subject to an undertaking given by the revisionist before the court below within a period of ten days from today.
(Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,J.)
October 13, 2025
Shekhar
