High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Ganga Sagar Mishra v. Ivth A.D.J. & Others - WRIT - C No. 14423 of 2000  RD-AH 7610 (25 April 2007)
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.14423 of 2000
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.14425 of 2000
Ganga Sagar Mishra Versus IV Additional District Judge, Kanpur Nagar and others.
Hon'ble S.U.Khan J
Original petitioner Ganga Sagar Mishra, since deceased and survived by legal representatives is tenant of two adjoining commercial accommodations, one is shop rent of which is Rs.125/- per month and the other is godown which is situate towards north of the tenanted shop rent of which is Rs.640/- per month.
Respondent No.2 Sri Mandir Ram Laxman Janki Ji Virajman Trust through its Sarvarakar trustee Sri Dinesh Chandra Gupta filed two suits for eviction against the petitioner in respect of both the tenanted accommodations. The suit in respect of godown was registered as SCC Suit no. 290 of 1995 and the suit in respect of shop was registered as SCC suit No. 293 of 1995. Both the suits were consolidated by JSCC Kanpur Nagar and decreed for eviction as well as for recovery of arrears of rent on 17.5.1996. Both the parties before the trial court stated that none of them intended to adduce any oral evidence. Trial court held that the tenanted property belonged to public religious institution hence by virtue of section 2(1) (bb) of U.P Urban Building (Regulation of Letting Rent and Eviction) Act 1972, the Act was not applicable to the building in dispute. Tenant had contended that rent was accepted which was sent by him through money order after service of notice of termination of tenancy, hence, notice stood waived. The said point was decided against the tenant by the trial court.
Tenant petitioner filed two revisions against the judgements and decrees passed by the trial court being SCC Revision Nos. 68 of 1996 (arising out of SCC Suit no. 290 of 1995) and SCC Revision No. 69 of 1996 (arising out of suit No. 293 of 1995). In the revisions, plaintiff respondent filed applications for amendment of the plaint. Through amendment, description of the plaintiff was sought to be substituted as "Trust Sri Ram Laxman Janki Ji Virajman at 77/5 Coolie Bazar Kanpur" In para 1 of the plaint also words owner in possession were sought to be substituted by "The premises owned by Sri Ram Laxman Janki Ji Virajman". The reason given for the amendment according to the revisional court was "Mandir Ram Laxman Janki Ji Virajman is not a juristic person and the property can be owned by a juristic person". Revisional court /IV Additional District Judge allowed the amendment applications in both the revisions through orders dated 25.1.2000. The said orders have been challenged through these writ petitions.
The court suggested to the parties to explore the chances of compromise. An order to that effect was passed on 18.4.2007 (on the order sheet). Today learned counsel for both the parties stated that the parties had agreed to settle the dispute through compromise and tenant had agreed to pay good amount of rent and landlord agreed not to execute the decree for eviction in case good amount of rent was paid by the tenant. In respect of good rent there was some variance between the learned counsel for both the parties. Ultimately on the suggestion of the court which was made on the principles of section 89 CPC learned counsel for both the parties after consulting their clients agreed that the good rent should be Rs.5000/- per month for both the accommodations and no further amount as water tax etc. shall be payable by the tenant. Learned counsel for the tenant stated that the Rent Control Act might be made applicable on the building otherwise landlord might initiate eviction proceeding whenever he wants to do so as irrespective of clause (bb), tenanted accommodations would go outside the purview of U.P. Rent Control Act, by virtue of clause (g) of Section 2(1) the Act according to which any building whose monthly rent exceeds Rs.2000/- is exempted from the operation of the Act. To the said request of learned counsel for the tenant , learned counsel for the landlord did not have serious objection. The Supreme Court in Lachoo Mal Vs.Radhey Shyam AIR 1971 SC 2213 has held that even if Rent Control Act is not applicable to a building, parties can by consent apply the same thereupon.
Accordingly, it is directed that with effect from May 2007 onwards tenant shall pay total rent of Rs.5000/- per month for both the tenanted accommodations. The arrears of rent till April, 2007 at the old rate shall be paid through draft drawn in favour of the plaintiff as described in the original plaint. The draft shall be handed over to the learned counsel for the plaintiff in this Court on 06.08.2007. If any amount towards rent has been deposited by the tenant before courts below, then the same shall at once be paid to the plaintiff-landlord before the courts below. The said amount need not be included in the draft of arrears of rent.
Both the revisions shall be consigned to records. Both the decrees passed by the Trial Court shall not be given effect to/execute.
Both the writ petitions are accordingly disposed of.
List in chambers at 1.30 p.m. on 06.08.2007 under the heading of "For Compliance". On the said date, the aforesaid draft shall be handed over by learned counsel for the tenant to the learned counsel for the landlord in Court.
Office is directed to supply copy of this judgment to learned counsel for both the parties free of cost, i.e. Sri S.D. Singh and Sri R.K. Mishra, within two weeks.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.