High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Khoob Chand Naja & Others v. Addl. Distt. Judge Lalitpur & Others - WRIT - A No. 5561 of 1995  RD-AH 6262 (22 March 2006)
(Court No. 51)
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 5561 of 1995
Khoob Chand Naja and others Versus Additional District Judge, Lalitpur and others
Hon'ble S.U.Khan J
Inspite of sufficient service no one has appeared on behalf of tenants-respondents.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.
This is landlords' writ petition arising out of SCC Suit No. 199 of 1980 filed against original tenant Ganeshi Lal who died during pendency of the suit and was survived by respondents 3 to 10. In the plaint of the suit relief for eviction and recovery of arrears of rent was sought. Through amendment paragraphs 7A and 7B were added in the plaint in which it was stated that shop in dispute had been sub-let by the legal representatives of Ganeshi Lal after his death. However no name of the alleged sub-tenant was mentioned. Tenant filed written statement and stated that after receiving notice of termination of tenancy and demand of rent, he remitted the amount through money order, which was refused by the landlords. Landlords admitted in oral evidence that money order had been sent by the tenants to the landlords' counsel, which had been refused. The trial court dismissed the suit on 13.9.1991. Landlords filed Civil / SCC Revision No38 of 1991 against the said judgment and decree, which was also dismissed by A.D.J Lalitpur on 17.11.1994 hence this writ petition.
On the first date of hearing tenant had deposited certain amount. Landlord asserted that the said amount was not complete as per requirement of section 20(4) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 as water tax had not been deposited. Both the courts below granted benefit of section 20(4) of the Act to the tenant. In respect of sub-letting, both the courts below held that it was not proved and that in the plaint proper, complete facts had not been mentioned.
In my opinion findings of the courts below in respect of sub-letting do not require any interference. Sub-tenant may not be necessary party in suit for eviction against main tenant however at least the name of the alleged sub-tenant must be mentioned in the plaint. The pleadings were utterly vague and incomplete.
As far as default is concerned, after receiving notice, tenant had sent the demanded rent through money order, which was admittedly refused by the landlord. In such situation tenant does not remain in arrears of rent even though rent remains in arrear in view of full bench authority of this Court reported in Inrasani Versus Din Ilahi 1968 AWR 167 (followed in G.Singh Vs. A.D.J 2000(1) ARC 653 (F.B))
Accordingly there is no merit in the writ petition hence it is dismissed.
I have held in Khursheeda Vs. A.D.J 2004(2) ARC 64 and H.M.Kichlu Versus A.D.J 2004(2) ARC 652 that while granting relief against eviction to the tenant in respect of building covered by Rent Control Act or while maintaining the relief already granted by the courts below, writ court is empowered to enhance the rent to a reasonable extent.
Property in dispute is a shop situate in Lalitpur. Existing rent of Rs. 40/- per month for a shop is virtually as well as actually no rent.
Accordingly, it is directed with effect from April 2006 onwards tenants shall pay rent to the landlords at the rate of Rs. 500/- per month inclusive of water tax etc. No further amount shall be paid by the tenants.
As no one has appeared on behalf of the tenants hence certified copy of this judgment shall be sent through registered post to one of the tenants by the landlords.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.