Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

LEKHRAJ versus ADJ

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Lekhraj v. Adj - WRIT - A No. 82 of 1995 [2006] RD-AH 9511 (15 May 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).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD

(Court No. 51)

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 82 of 1995

Lekhraj Versus XVI Additional District Judge, Meerut and others.

Hon'ble S.U.Khan J

Supplementary affidavit filed.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

This is landlord's writ petition. Landlord petitioner filed suit for eviction against tenant respondent No.2 Rajesh Kumar Malhotra before JSCC Meerut in the form of SCC Suit No. 91 of 1989. Relief for recovery of arrears of rent was also sought. In the plaint, it was pleaded that as building in dispute had been constructed within ten years from filing of the suit hence U.P Act No. 13 of 1972 was not applicable to the same. The trial court/ Additional JSCC, Meerut accepted the said plea of the landlord and decreed the suit for eviction through judgment and decree dated 8.9.1994. Against the said judgment and decree revision was filed by tenant respondent No.2 being SCC Revision No. 242 of 1994. Before the revisional court an application seeking amendment in the written statement was filed. The amendment application was allowed by the revisional court. Through the amendment a new para was added to the written statement to the effect that in case court found that U.P Act No.13 of 1972 was not applicable to the building in dispute then tenant was entitled to the benefit of section 114 T.P Act as he had deposited the entire amount of arrears of rent on the first date. Thereafter revisional court by the impugned judgment and order dated 5.12.1994 allowed the revision; set-aside the judgment and decree passed by the trial court dated 8.9.1994 and remanded the matter.

Matter was remanded to consider the applicability of section 114 T.P. Act and validity of notice under section 106 T.P Act. As far as question of validity of notice under section 106 T.P. Act is concerned the same could very well be judged by the revisional court. As far as question of applicability of section 114 T.P is concerned the same could also be judged by the revisional court. In this regard first of all it has to be seen as to whether the said section is at all attracted to the facts of the case or not. I have discussed this aspect in detail in an authority reported in V.K.Rastogi Vs. A.D.J 2003(2) ARC 377.

In my opinion there was absolutely no need to remand the matter by the revisional court.

Accordingly writ petition is allowed. Judgment and order passed by the revisional court is set-aside and revision is remanded to the revisional court for decision afresh. Revisional court shall decide as to whether section 114 T.P Act is applicable to the facts of the case or not and in case it holds that it is applicable then revisional court must decide as to whether tenant has complied with the requirement of the said section or not in respect of quantum of deposit and date of deposit. Revision shall be decided as expeditiously as possible.

During pendency of revision eviction of the tenant shall remain stayed on the condition that entire decreetal amount at the decreed rate (which was also admitted rate) due till 31.5.2006 after adjusting any amount already deposited shall be deposited before the revisional court by the tenant by 31.7.2006 for immediate payment to the landlord. With effect from June 2006 onwards, tenant shall deposit rent / damages for use and occupation at the rate of Rs. 1500/- per month by 7th of each succeeding month before the revisional court for immediate payment to the landlord. In case of default stay order shall stand automatically vacated. This direction of payment of enhanced rent is being issued in view of Supreme Court authority reported in Atma Ram Properties Versus Federal Motors 2005(1) SCC 705.

Waqar

15.5.2006


Copyright

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

Advertisement

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 |

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