Smt. Pinki Mishra vs Additional District And Session Judge ...
2025 Latest Caselaw 11501 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Smt. Pinki Mishra vs Additional District And Session Judge ... on 14 October, 2025

Author: Jaspreet Singh

Bench: Jaspreet Singh

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 


Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:63604
 

 
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
LUCKNOW 
 
S.C.C. REVISION DEFECTIVE No. - 13 of 2025   
 
   Smt. Pinki Mishra    
 
  .....Revisionist(s)   
 
 Versus  
 
   Additional District And Session Judge Court No.8 Lucknow And Another    
 
  .....Opposite Party(s)       
 
   
 
  
 
Counsel for Revisionist(s)   
 
:   
 
Harendra Pratap Singh, Gulam Ali Rashidi, Ram Chandra Dwivedi   
 
  
 
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)   
 
:   
 
Sanjay Kumar Awasthi   
 
     
 
 Court No. - 6
 
   
 
 HON'BLE JASPREET SINGH, J.      

1. Heard Shri Udai Pratap Singh holding brief of Shri Harendra Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the revisionist and Shri Sanjay Kumar Awasthi, learned counsel for the private-respondent No.2.

2. The instant S.C.C. revision has been preferred by the tenant-revisionist assailing the judgment and decree dated 18.07.2025 passed in S.C.C. Suit No.44/2020 by the Additional District Judge, Court No.8, Lucknow, whereby the suit for eviction, arrears of rent and damages has been decreed.

3. The record indicates that the instant S.C.C. revision is delayed by two days.

4. The Court has considered the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act and find that the cause shown is sufficient. Moreover, learned counsel for the private-respondent No.2 also does not oppose the condonation of delay noticing two days delay.

5. In view thereof, the application seeking condonation of delay is allowed. The instant S.C.C. revision would be treated to be filed within time.

6. Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that the findings recorded by the trial Court are erroneous for the reason that the revisionist and the private-respondent No.2 had entered into a rent agreement in terms whereof, the disputed shop in question was let out to the revisionist on monthly rent of Rs.750/- for a period of five years. The water tax was to be paid over and above the agreed rent of Rs.75/- per month.

7. It is urged that the revisionist did not commit any default in payment of rent rather the dispute arose when the private-respondent No.2 arbitrarily and unilaterally enhanced rent from Rs.750/- to Rs.4,500/- per month.

8. In the aforesaid backdrop that even though the revisionist offered the rent as agreed to the private-respondent No.2, but the same was not accepted and in order to avoid any confrontation, the revisionist sought the leave of the trial Court to deposit the rent before the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Hawali, Lucknow in Misc. Case No.126/2016 (Pinki Mishra v. Smt. Sushma Singh) under Section 30 of the U.P. Act No.13 of 1972.

9. It is urged that despite being informed, the private-respondent No.2 still did not accept the rent. Accordingly, neither the revisionist can be said to be in default nor there was any lack of bonafide on behalf of the revisionist, hence, for the said reason, the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court is erroneous inasmuch as it does not take note of the deposit of rent by the revisionist before the Court and moreover without there being any proper evidence, the enhanced rent which has been taken note of is bad in the eyes of law coupled with the fact that the damages awarded is also not supported by any evidence, accordingly, the matter may be considered on merits.

10. Learned counsel for the private-respondent No.2 while refuting the aforesaid submissions has pointed out that admittedly the provisions of the U.P. Act No.13 of 1972 is not applicable on the building in question. In this view of the fact, the revisionist is not entitled to any statutory protection as may be available to a tenant, who has an umbrella of protection of the rent laws of the State.

11. It is further urged that insofar as the composite notice for demand and ejectment is concerned, the same was duly served on the revisionist and this fact is not disputed. Once, there is no statutory protection available, also that the composite notice for demand and ejectment was served, immediately, after thirty days next from the date of service of the composite notice, the status of the revisionist became that of a tenant at sufferance and in such circumstances, the revisionist is not entitled to any benefit. Accordingly, the instant S.C.C. revision, in the given facts and admitted circumstances, deserves to be dismissed.

12. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and also from a perusal of the material available on record, it is not disputed that there is a relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties.

13. It is also not disputed that the composite notice for demand and ejectment dated 26.10.2019 was duly served on the revisionist, who also replied to the same by means of reply dated 15.11.2019, hence, to this extent, the service of the composite notice is also not in dispute. Apparently, once the relationship of a landlord and tenant stood severed by means of the notice dated 26.10.2019 and there is nothing on record to indicate that the revisionist was entitled to any statutory protection, in such circumstances, it cannot be said that there is any jurisdictional error committed by the trial Court while decreeing the suit.

14. Insofar as the rate of rent is concerned, the trial Court has returned a finding based on material on record to indicate that the rate of rent was Rs.2,700/- per month. As far as the plea taken by the revisionist that he had deposited the rent under Section 30 of the U.P. Act No.13 of 1972 in Misc. Case No.126/2016, is concerned, the same does not come to the aid of the revisionist for the reason that once the shop in question was not governed by the U.P. Act No.13 of 1972, in such circumstances, it did not give any right to the revisionist to deposit or invoke the provisions of Section 30 of the U.P. Act No.13 of 1972 and the deposit of rent in terms of Section 30 of the U.P. Act No.13 of 1972 will not help the revisionist inasmuch as the said deposit was made after the composite notice for demand and ejectment dated 26.10.2019 was served. If at all, the revisionist had any chance to deposit the rent, then it should have been deposited in terms of Order XV Rule 5 CPC (as amended in the State of U.P.). Admittedly, that is not the case in the given facts and circumstances of the instant case.

15. A plea that the revisionist had deposited the rent bonafide before the Court concerned, is also not available to be taken as a defence before this Court. Thus, the findings of the trial Court that the revisionist was not in arrears for the aforesaid reason cannot be said to be bad.

16. Insofar as the damages, which have been awarded by the trial Court is concerned, it would reveal that this aspect has been settled by the Apex Court in the case of Atma Ram Properties (P) Ltd. v. Federal Motors (P) Ltd., (2005) 1 SCC 705, which has specifically been followed in various decisions to state that after the severance of the relationship of a landlord and tenant, the tenant is required to pay the damages on the market value.

16. It is not indicated by any material as to how the figures of Rs.5,000/- per month awarded as damages is bad. Moreover, considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court finds that there is no palpable error committed by the trial Court, which may persuade this Court to entertain the aforesaid revision, which is accordingly dismissed at the admission stage itself. The judgment and decree passed in S.C.C. Suit No.44/2020 by the Additional District Judge, Court No.8, Lucknow dated 18.07.2025 is affirmed.

17. In the facts and circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs.

(Jaspreet Singh,J.)

October 14, 2025

Rakesh/-