Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

JAI PRAKASH versus SMT. CHHAMA SRIVASTAVA

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Jai Prakash v. Smt. Chhama Srivastava - WRIT - A No. 67097 of 2005 [2005] RD-AH 5285 (8 November 2005)

 

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. 67097 of 2005

Jai Prakash Versus Smt. Chhama Srivastava

Hon'ble S.U.Khan, J

This is tenant's writ petition. Landlady respondent filed SCC suit No. 55 of 2004 against tenant petitioner before JSCC Allahabad, on the ground of default. The tenant pleaded that he had sent the rent to the landlady after receiving notice through money order which was refused hence he deposited the same under section 30 of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972. Landlady had pleaded that the rate of rent was Rs. 150/- per month. Tenant pleaded that it was only Rs. 20 per month. In this regard the plea of the tenant was accepted by the trial court. The trial court held that deposit under section 30 of the Act was not valid as after receiving the notice tenant had not sent the rent through money order. Accordingly trial court through judgment and decree dated 28.2.2005, decreed the suit for eviction and recovery of arrears of rent and mesne profit and future damages at the rate of Rs. 20/- per month. Against the said judgment and decree tenant petitioner filed Civil Revision No. 384 of 2005. Additional District Judge, Court No. 5 Allahabad through judgment and order dated 11.7.2005 dismissed the revision hence this writ petition.

After hearing learned counsel for both the parties (respondent is represented through caveat), I do not find any error in the impugned judgments. The money order of Rs. 940/- alleged to have been sent by the tenant petitioner to landlady respondent on 22.10.2003 does not appear to have ever been sent. The coupon or acknowledgement does not contain any stamp of the post office. Admittedly if amount deposited by tenant under section 30 of the Act is ignored, he was defaulter and he had also not made complete deposit under section 20(4) of the Act. A deposit under section 30 of the Act is not valid unless rent is tendered to the landlord through money order and is refused by the landlord.

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

Petitioner is granted six months time to vacate provided that -

(1) Within one month 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-respondent.

(2) Within one month from today, entire decreetal amount due till date after adjusting the amount already deposited, shall be deposited by tenant-petitioner before the JSCC for immediate payment to landlord.

(3) 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 one month before the JSCC and shall immediately be paid to the landlord-respondent.

It is further directed that in case undertaking is not filed or Rs. 3000/- is not deposited within one month then tenant petitioners shall be liable to pay damages at the rate of Rs.2000/- per month since after one month till the date of actual vacation.

Similarly if after filing undertaking and depositing Rs. 3000/-, property in dispute is not vacated by the tenant after six months then damages for use and occupation shall be payable at the rate of Rs.2000/- per month since after six months till actual vacation.

Waqar

8.11.2005


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.