Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

L.N. VERMA versus A.D.J.

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation


L.N. Verma v. A.D.J. - WRIT - A No. 16937 of 1991 [2006] RD-AH 8307 (25 April 2006)


This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).



Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 16937 of 1991

Laxmi Narain Verma Versus I Additional District Judge, Shahjahanpur and others.

Hon'ble S.U.Khan J

This is tenant's writ petition arising out of suit for eviction filed by landlord respondent No.2 Devi Prasad Vidyalay, Shahjahanpur through its manager for eviction and recovery of arrears of rent in the form of S.C.C Suit No. 16 of 1986 on the file of JSCC / Munsif Shahjahanpur. In the plaint, it was claimed that plaintiff landlord was an educational institution and U.P Act No. 13 of 1972 was not applicable to the building in dispute as it belonged to recognized educational institution and whole of the income from the rent was utilized for the said institution. In the year 1986 section 2(1)(b) of U.P Act No. 13 of 1972 stood as follows:

"Nothing in this Act shall apply to any building belonging to or vested in a recognized educational institution the whole of the income from which is utilized for the purposes of such institution."

Suit was filed after terminating the tenancy through notice. The trial court decreed the suit for eviction and recovery of arrears of rent at the rate of Rs. 100/- per month through judgment and decree dated 28.3.1990. Against the said judgment and decree, tenant petitioner filed SCC Revision No. 28 of 1990. I Additional District Judge, Shahjahanpur through judgment and order dated 30.3.1991 dismissed the revision hence this writ petition.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that ingredients of section 2(1)(b) of the Act as stood at the relevant time were not proved. Courts below held that college in question was registered and recognized and relevant papers to prove the said fact had been filed. Through paper No. 65 Ga, recognition of the College was renewed from 10.10.1985 for five years. It was also found that the entire rent was deposited in the account of the College. Tenant petitioner had also admitted that the rent was deposited in the account of the college.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has also argued that two amendment applications were wrongly rejected. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to show that there is any error in the rejection order. The first amendment was with regard to the allegation that Committee of Management was not a registered body. Committee of Management is recognized. There is no provision of registration of Committee of Management. A Society is registered and a School or College is recognized. Similarly Committee of Management of society and college is also recognized. This question was already very much in issue and was decided by the courts below on the basis of documentary evidence hence absolutely no prejudice was caused to the tenant by rejection of the amendment application.

The other amendment application was to the effect that there were some other tenants and college could satisfy its need by evicting them by filing suit for eviction against them. No landlord can be compelled to initiate eviction proceedings against other tenants even though the landlord may be having a good ground to eject them.

Third application which was filed by the petitioner and rejected by the trial court was to the effect that a commission be sent to ascertain that several vacant rooms were available with the plaintiff. This application was also frivolous as availability of any number of vacant rooms to the plaintiff college was wholly immaterial for the decision of the suit. The only thing required to be decided in the suit was as to whether Plaintiff College was covered under section 2(1)(b) of the Act as it stood at the relevant time or not; and whether tenancy of the tenant had validly been terminated through notice. Both the points were rightly decided by the courts below against the tenant petitioner.

Accordingly there is no merit in the writ petition hence it is dismissed.

It may be mentioned that during pendency of restoration application (which was allowed on 18.4.2006) an order was passed on 22.2.2006 staying eviction of the petitioner on the condition that he deposited Rs. 3000/-. Thereafter time to make deposit was extended on 8.3.2006 with the rider that instead of Rs. 3000/-, Rs. 5000/- should be deposited. No amount has been deposited by the petitioner under the said orders.

Petitioner is granted six months time to vacate provided that :

   (1) Within six weeks from today he files an undertaking before the JSCC to the effect that on or before the expiry of period of six months he will willingly vacate and handover possession of the property in dispute to the landlord.

(2) For this period of six months which has been granted to the petitioner to vacate he is required to pay Rs.3000/- (at the rate of Rs.500/- per month) as damages for use and occupation.  This amount shall also be deposited within six weeks before the JSCC and shall immediately be paid to the landlord.

(3)Entire decreetal amount due till date and amount of Rs. 5000/- as directed by order dated 8.3.2006 shall be deposited within six weeks from today before the JSCC for immediate payment to landlord.

It is further directed that in case undertaking is not filed or amount of Rs. 3000/- alongwith entire decreetal amount due till date and Rs. 5000/-  are not deposited within six weeks then petitioner shall be liable to pay damages at the rate of Rs.1000/- per month since after six weeks till the date of actual vacation.

Similarly if after filing the aforesaid undertaking and depositing Rs. 3000/- and Rs. 5000/- alongwith entire decreetal amount, the property in dispute is not vacated on the expiry of six months then damages for use and occupation shall be payable at the rate of Rs.1000/- per month since after six months till actual vacation.




Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites


dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.