Uttarakhand High Court
Smt. Sonika Aggarwal vs Ramji Krishna Sharma on 22 August, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Civil Revision No. 116 of 2023
Smt. Sonika Aggarwal ...... Revisionist
Vs.
1. Ramji Krishna Sharma S/o Late Shri Horam
Sharma
2. Shri Naveen Kumar S/o Shri Rajendra Lal
..... Respondents
Present:
Mr. Aditya Singh, counsel for the revisionist.
Mr. Narendra Bali, counsel for the caveator.
Dated : 22.08.2023
Hon'ble Vivek Bharti Sharma, J. (Oral)
The present revision has been filed by the
revisionist against the impugned judgment and order
dated 25.07.2023 passed by SCC Judge/1st Additional
District Judge, Haridwar in S.C.C. Suit No. 06 of 2018
'Ramji Krishna Sharma vs. Sonika Aggarwal', whereby
the court below has allowed the said suit by directing
the revisionist to handover the vacant peaceful
possession to the respondent/plaintiff within a period of
30 days.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and
perused the record available on file.
3. Counsel for the revisionist/defendant no. 1
tenant would submit that S.C.C. Suit No. 06 of 2018 was
filed before Small Causes Court, Haridwar by the
respondent no. 1/landlord on the grounds of
termination of tenancy for non-payment of rent and
inducting the sub-tenant i.e. respondent no.
2/defendant no. 2 from the property in question. He
would further submit that four issues were framed by
the trial court which read as follows:-
i. As to whether the revisionist/defendant no.
1/tenant is inducted as tenant in the property
stated in the schedule at the bottom of the plaint
at the rent of ` 2928/- per month.
ii. As to whether the suit is barred under the
provisions of U.P. Rent Control Act, 1972.
iii. As to whether the tenancy of the
revisionist/defendant no. 1/tenant was
terminated by the notice dated 12.02.2018.
iv. As to whether the respondent no. 1/plaintiff is
entitled to any relief in the Small Causes Court.
4. Counsel for the revisionist/defendant no. 1
tenant would submit that the evidence was adduced by
the respective parties except that the respondent no.
2/defendant no. 2 neither file written statement nor
adduced any evidence whatsoever.
Counsel for the revisionist/defendant no. 1
tenant would submit that it is an admitted fact that after
receipt of the notice, the revisionist/defendant no. 1
tenant paid all the arrears of rent as claimed by the
respondent no. 1/plaintiff landlord in his notice dated
12.02.2018 and this fact is stated in the plaint also;
that, though, in the rent agreement was for two shops
i.e. Shop No. 6 & Shop No. 7, but one Rent Agreement
was executed; that, the rent of the tenanted premises of
two shops is stated in Rent Agreement of ` 2000/- per
month with additional clause that on expiry of three
years of the tenancy, the rent can be enhanced @ 10%;
that, but in reality, the two tenancy in respect of Shop
No. 6 and Shop No. 7 were created though single Rent
Agreement was executed; that, as tenancy of two shops
i.e. the shop no.6 and shop no.7 were created by single
Rent Agreement, therefore, the rent of ` 2,928/- shall be
for two shops i.e. ` 1,464/- for each, hence the suit was
barred by the provisions of U.P. Rent Control Act, 1972.
He would further submit that respondent no. 1/plaintiff
landlord could not prove the fact of sub-tenancy of
respondent no. 2/defendant no. 2.
5. Learned counsel for the revisionist/defendant
no. 1 tenant drew attention of the Court to the rent
agreement (Page no. 55 of the revision) and would submit
that in the schedule of tenanted premises (Page No. 56 at
bottom of the agreement) it is clearly stated that in the
description of the tenanted premises Shop No. 6 and
Shop No. 7 are situated at Ramji Krishna Bhawan
Mansha Devi Ropeway Marg Upper Road, Haridwar. He
would further submit that in the Clause-1 of the said
rent agreement, it is stated that the security amount of `
4,00,000/- (Rupees Four lacs) was paid by way of two
Drafts of ` 2,00,000/- each (Rupees Two lacs) both dated
07.10.2006, which gives inevitable inference that the
tenancy of two shops i.e. Shop No. 6 and Shop No. 7
were created by single Rent Agreement. He would further
submit that it is admitted by the respondent no.
1/plaintiff/landlord that the original tenancy was
created in the year 1970 and there was no new
constructions made in the year 2000, therefore, the
Small Causes Court erred by giving wrong finding on the
fact that Rent Act, 1972 did not apply as the
construction of the said two shops was new.
However, the counsel for the
revisionist/defendant no. 1 tenant would admit the fact
that the Notice dated 12.02.2018 clearly stipulated the
fact that the tenancy of the revisionist/defendant no.
1/tenant was terminated on the expiry of 30 days from
the date of receipt of the Notice. He fairly admitted at
Bar that if the suit is not held to be barred by the
provisions of the U.P. Rent Control Act, 1972 then the
termination of the tenancy had attained the finality on
the receipt of Notice and would not have created any
statutory tenancy in favour of the revisionist/defendant
no. 1/tenant.
6. Counsel for the respondent no. 1/plaintiff
landlord would submit that the submissions of the
counsel for the revisionist/defendant no. 1 tenant are
misconceived as the Rent Agreement (Annexure No. 5,
Page No. 54 to 56 of the revision) specifically states in
Clause 10 that:-
^^10- ;g fd mDr nksuksa nqdkuksa uacj 6 o 7 uofufeZr gS rFkk mu ij m-iz-
jsUV dUVªksy ,DV ykxw ugha gksrk gSA^^
(That both the Shop No. 6 and Shop No. 7 are new
construction and the U.P. Rent Control Act does not
apply on the same.)
He would further submit that as this Rent
Agreement is being relied upon by the counsel for the
revisionist/defendant no. 1 tenant, therefore, it is an
admitted document, therefore, this clause binds him up
to the hilt i.e. U.P. Rent Control Act, 1972 does not apply
on the present tenanted premises, therefore, the finding
of the Small Cause Court is correct and as per law,
hence, revision is liable to be dismissed in limine.
7. In the light of the submissions of the counsel
for the respective parties, this Court perused all the
documents filed with the memo of revision, impugned
judgment and grounds of appeal.
8. Perusal of the rent agreement clearly shows in
the description of the tenanted premises that there is no
mention that two tenancies are being created on the
basis of single Rent Agreement. Merely giving two drafts
of ` 2,00,000/- each for security of ` 4,00,000/- for
tenancy does not make it for two separate tenancy.
There was no reason, exigency, no occasion and no
compulsion on the parties to execute one Rent
Agreement for two tenancy. If for the sake of argument if
it is presumed that two tenancies were created for Shop
No. 6 and Shop No. 7 by single Rent Agreement then this
could have been categorically and specifically stated in
very unambiguous words in separate clause of this Rent
Agreement. As there is no such Clause, therefore, the
same leads to the only conclusion that it was single
tenancy for the Shop Nos. 6 & 7 for the rent of ` 2000/-
per month with a clause of enhancement of rent @ 10%
on expiry of three years. Therefore, this, consequently,
takes the suit out from the reach of mischief of U.P. Rent
Control Act, 1972.
Secondly, there is specific Clause 10 in the
Rent Agreement an admitted document to the present
revisionist/defendant no. 1 tenant that the construction
of Shop Nos. 6 & 7 is new and the U.P. Rent Control Act,
1972 consequently, would not apply.
9. This Court does not find any infirmity in
the impugned order/judgment dated 25.07.2023 in
SCC Suit No. 06 of 2018 on any reasonable and
plausible ground.
10. In light of the above, this Court is of the
view that there is no reason to make any interference
in the impugned judgment and order. The revision
deserves to be dismissed at the admission stage.
11. Accordingly, the revision is hereby
dismissed in limine.
12. The copy of the judgment be provided to the
counsel for the respective parties as per Rules within two
days.
(Vivek Bharti Sharma, J.)
22.08.2023
Akash
