Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

GULAB DAS versus MUZAFFAR AND OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Gulab Das v. Muzaffar And Others - WRIT - A No. - 29242 of 2007 [2007] RD-AH 16949 (26 October 2007)

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 AT ALLAHABAD

Court No. 7

CIVIL MISC. WRIT PETITION NO. 29242 OF 2007

Gulab Das Vs. Muzaffar and others

Hon'ble Sunil Ambwani, J.

Heard Shri C.K. Parekh, learned counsel for the petitioner-landlord. Shri Virendra Kumar Yadav has entered appearance on behalf of respondent-tenant Smt. Shanti Devi.

Both the courts below have held that the tenant was depositing rent under Section 30 (2) of Uttar Pradesh Urban Building (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act 1972 ( the Act) as he has bonafide doubt about the right of the landlord to receive the rent. It was found that a title suit was filed giving rise to bonafide doubt to the tenant and thus his deposit dated 31.2.1977, in Misc. Case for which the tender was prescribed on 2.12.1977 within one month of the receipt of notice, was also valid. The respondent-tenant continued to deposit the rent in the Misc. Case and that there is no default in filing the suit for eviction.

The findings, recorded by Judge, Small Cause Court in his judgment dated 8.11.2005 and revisional court in the judgment dated 21.3.2007, are findings of fact, which do not call for any interference from the Court.

Shri C.K. Parekh submits that the filing of suit by the stranger would not entitle the tenant to deposit the rent under Section 30 (2) of the Act and that the Misc. Case was ultimately rejected on 17.11.1984. The deposits thereafter were not valid.

The courts below recorded findings that before the landlord had given notice terminating the tenancy, the entire rent was deposited and that within 30 days of the demand, the rent was deposited. The tender dated 2.12.1977 was passed on 3.12.1977 and thus the deposit will relate back to 3.12.1977. The tenant was not found to be in default. The tenant deposited rent within 30 days of the demand notice and was not default in payment of rent for more than three months to lift the umbrella of the Rent Control Act seeking his eviction.

The writ petition is dismissed.

Dt.26.10.2007

RKP/-


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.