Uttarakhand High Court
CLR/22/2025 on 12 August, 2025
Author: Alok Kumar Verma
Bench: Alok Kumar Verma
Office Notes,
reports, orders or
SL. proceedings or
Date COURT'S OR JUDGES'S ORDERS
No directions and
Registrar's order
with Signatures
12.08.2025 CLR No.22 of 2025
Hon'ble Alok Kumar Verma, J.
The proposed Revision has been
filed by the defendant under Section 25
of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act,
1887 against the judgment and decree
dated 07.02.2025, passed by learned
Judge, Small Causes Court/IInd Additional
District Judge, Haridwar in SCC Suit
No.05 of 2021, whereby, the learned
Judge has decreed the suit of
possession, rent and mesne profits.
2. Heard Mr. Piyush Garg, learned
counsel for revisionist and Mr.
Siddhartha Singh, learned counsel for
respondent-plaintiff.
3. The respondent-plaintiff had filed
the said Suit in relation to two shops
after sending a quit notice under Section
106 of the Transfer of Property Act,
1882. The allegation of the plaintiff is
that the defendant had demolished the
wall built between the said shops without
any permission, due to which the value
of the shops diminished.
4. Mr. Piyush Garg, Advocate,
contended that the revisionist had
renovated the shop with the consent of
the respondent. The case of the plaintiff
is that two shops were given on rent, but
the trial court has decreed the suit
holding that after the wall was removed,
it had the form of one shop.
5. Mr. Piyush Garg, Advocate, further
submitted that the provisions of the
Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings
(Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction)
Act, 1972 (as applicable in the State of
Uttarakhand) apply to one of the said
two shops, therefore, one suit regarding
both the shops is not maintainable. He
has relied upon a judgment of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in "S. Sanyal
Vs. Gian Chand", AIR 1968 SC 438.
6. On the other hand, Mr. Siddhartha
Singh, appearing for the respondent-
plaintiff submitted that the revisionist-
defendant has admitted in his pleading
that there was only one shop. A
composite notice under Section 106 of
the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 was
given to the revisionist-defendant for the
said two shops, therefore, one suit
regarding both the shops is
maintainable. He has relied upon two
judgments of the Hon'ble Allahabad High
Court in "Kishan Lal Singhania Vs.
District Judge, Kanpur Nagar and
Another", Allahabad Rent Cases,
1990(1) 586 and "Devesh Chandra
Gupta Vs. Dina Nath and Others",
Allahabad Rent Cases, 1992(1) 3.
7. The contentions raised by learned
counsel for the parties are fairly
arguable. Therefore, it seems
appropriate to deal with the contentions
raised by them by admitting the present
Revision.
8. The Revision is admitted.
9. The eviction of the revisionist would
be kept-in-abeyance, subject to prior
conditions of depositing of the decreetal
amount within a period of three weeks
from today. During the pendency of the
revision, the revisionist would also
ensure to remit the mesne profits, as
directed by the trial court, to the
respondent by the 7th of each month.
10. In case, if there is any default in
depositing/paying of the amount as
directed, the interim order would
automatically stand vacated.
11. The Stay Application (IA No.01 of
2024) is disposed of accordingly.
12. List on 07.10.2025 for final hearing.
(Alok Kumar Verma, J.)
12.08.2025
Neha
