High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Asif Raza Khan v. Mohd. Yaqub Khan - WRIT - A No. 69368 of 2005  RD-AH 5384 (9 November 2005)
(Court No. 51)
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 69367 of 2005
Smt. Saeeda Bee and others Versus Mohd Yaqub Khan
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 69368 of 2005
Asif Raza Khan Versus Mohd Yaqub Khan
Hon'ble S.U.Khan J
Both these writ petitions arise out two suits filed by Mohd Yaqub Khan who is the sole respondent in both the writ petitions. Respondent claimed that he was landlord of two adjoining shops and in one of the shops petitioners of the first writ petition were tenants and in the other shop petitioner of the second writ petition was the tenant. Landlord respondent claimed that rent of one shop was Rs. 200/- per month and rent of second shop was Rs.300/- per month. He also claimed that since 1.7.1996, rent had not been paid. Suits were registered as SCC Suit No. 10 and 11 of 2000 on the file of JSCC / Civil Judge (S.D), Rampur. The petitioners of both the writ petitions pleaded that the property in dispute in both the suit was in the shape of one shop having two khans and that the rent of the entire shop was Rs. 150/- per month. They also claimed that rent had been paid till 1999 and thereafter on refusal of the landlord, it was deposited under section 30 of U.P Act No. 13 of 1972. The trial court held that accommodation in dispute consisted of two shops and the rent was Rs. 500/- per month for both the shops and that since 1.7.1996 rent had not been paid. Trial court also held that the deposit made under section 30 was not valid. Consequently both the suits were decreed on 4.9.2004 against which two revisions were filed being SCC revision No. 79 of 2004 and 78 of 2004. Additional District Judge, Court No. 1 Rampur on 17.9.2005 dismissed both the revisions hence these writ petitions.
Heard Sri M.A. Siddiqui, learned counsel for the petitioners in both the writ petitions and Sri T.A.Khan, learned counsel for the respondent in both the writ petitions who has appeared through caveat.
The first point argued by learned counsel for the petitioner is that the deposit made by the petitioners under section 30 of the Act was valid and both the courts below wrongly refused to take into consideration the said deposit. Even if this argument is accepted it will not make any difference. Both the courts below have recorded the findings that rate of rent is Rs.500/- per month and rent is due since 1.7.1996. These findings are pure findings of fact, which can not be disturbed in exercise of writ jurisdiction. Rent under section 30 was deposited at the rate of Rs. 150/- per month and that also from 1999 and not from 1.7.1996.
The other point argued by learned counsel for the petitioners is that initially Mohd Yusuf Khan was the landlord who left behind other heirs. At one point of time the tenants even denied that plaintiff respondent Mohd Yaqub Khan was son of Mohd Yusuf Khan however later on the said plea was given up. The Supreme Court in M/s India Umbrela Manufacturing Company Vs. B.Agarwal, AIR 2004 SC 1321 has held that even one of the landlords can file suit for eviction of the tenant without impleading other co landlords either as plaintiff or as proforma respondents.
Accordingly I do not find any such error in the impugned judgments, decrees and orders, which may warrant interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction.
Accordingly both the writ petitions are dismissed.
Tenant petitioners are granted time till 15.8.2006 to vacate provided that-
(1) Within one month from today they file an undertaking before the JSCC to the effect that on or before 15.8.2006, they will willingly vacate and handover possession of the property in dispute to the landlord-respondent.
(2) Within three month from today, entire arrears of rent due till 15.8.2006 after adjusting any amount already deposited either under section 30 or in the suit shall be deposited by the petitioners before JSCC for immediate payment to the landlord.
(3) In case of default tenant petitioner shall be evicted after one or three months as the case may be.
In case inspite of filing under taking, property in dispute is not vacated by the petitioners uptil 15.8.2006 then since 16.8.2006 till actual vacation, petitioner shall be liable to pay double the amount of the decreed rent i.e. Rs. 400/- per month for one shop and Rs. 600/- per month for the other shop.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.