High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Amiruddin v. Ist Adj & Ohters - WRIT - A No. 4154 of 1992  RD-AH 6882 (5 December 2005)
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.4154 of 1992
Amiruddin Vs. Ist A.D.J., Kanpur and others
This is tenant's writ petition. Landlords-respondents 3 to 10 filed suit for eviction and recovery of arrears of rent against tenant-petitioner before JSCC, Kanpur Nagar which was transferred to the court of Additional JSCC, Kanpur Nagar. The suit was registered as SCC suit no.309 of 1985. Eviction was sought on the ground of default and denial of title. Tenant made a bald assertion that rent sent by him through money order to the landlords was refused hence he deposited the same in a case under Section 30 of U.P. Act No.13 of 1972. However no document to support the said contention was filed. Neither money order receipt or coupon nor evidence of any deposit under Section 30 of the Act was filed. Even in the suit for eviction no amount was deposited claiming the benefit of Section 20(4) of the Act.
Main defense of the tenant was that the property in dispute had been acquired under U.P. Slum Areas Act 1962. Property in dispute is a part of Ahata bearing no.99/13-D. Courts below found that the said Ahata was not acquired. Similar suit was filed against tenant for the adjoining property. Matter came up to this Court in the form of writ petition no.4948 of 1992. The said writ petition was decided finally on 9.11.1992. In the said judgment findings of the courts below that Ahatas no.99/13-A to D not acquired were affirmed. In the said writ petition property in dispute was part of Ahata no.99/13-B. Alongwith the Supplementary counter affidavit judgment of this court dated 10.7.1992 in writ petition no.11630 of 1987 has been filed. Through the said judgment the notification through which Ahata no.99/13 was acquired was set aside. In view of this even if the argument of learned counsel for the petitioner that property in dispute is part of premises no.99/13- Beconganj, Kanpur and not 99/13-D is accepted it will not make any difference. The trial court/Addl.JSCC, Kanpur through judgment and decree dated 15.10.1990 decreed the suit for ejectment and recovery of arrears of rent. The tenant-petitioner filed SCC revision no.175/90 against the said judgment and decree. IXth A.D.J. Kanpur Nagar dismissed the revision through judgment and order dated 22.1.1992 hence this writ petition.
In my opinion the only error in the impugned judgment is that suit has wrongly been decreed on the ground of denial of title. Assertion of the tenant that property in dispute had been acquired under Slum Areas Act even though wrong did not amount to denial of title. However, petitioner was liable to be evicted on the ground of default. Even in the writ petition nothing has been shown regarding deposit of any amount by the tenant under any case under Section 30 of the Act. Admittedly in the suit giving rise to the instant writ petition also no amount was deposited by the tenant.
Accordingly, there is no merit in the writ petition hence it is dismissed.
Tenant-petitioner is granted six months time to vacate provided that
(1) Within one month from today they file an undertaking before the JSCC to the effect that on or before the expiry of aforesaid period of six months they will willingly vacate and handover possession of the property in dispute to the landlords-respondents.
(2) Within one month entire decreetal amount due till date is deposited by the petitioner before the trial court for immediate payment to landlords- respondents.
(3) For this period of six months which has been granted to the petitioners to vacate they are required to pay Rs.3,000/- (at the rate of Rs.500/- per month) as rent/damages for use and occupation. This amount shall also be deposited within one month before the JSCC and shall immediately be paid to the landlords-respondents.
In case of default in compliance of any of these conditions tenants petitioners shall be evicted through process of Court after one month.
It is further directed that in case undertaking is not filed or aforesaid amount is not deposited on entire decreetal amount due till date is not deposited within one month then tenant petitioner shall be liable to pay damages at the rate of Rs.2,000/- per month since after one month till the date of actual vacation.
Similarly if after filing undertaking and depositing the aforesaid amount within one month property in dispute is not vacated on the expiry of six months then since after expiry of six months till actual vacation tenant shall be liable to pay damages at the rate of Rs.1,000/- per month.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.