D.K.Jain vs J.N.Khatri

Sudhir Narain, J.—This writ petition is directed against the judgment and decree passed by the Judge Small Causes Court dated 341998 decreeing the suit of the plaintiffrespondent in respect of the arrears of rent, ejectment and damages and the judgment of Respondent No. 3 affirming the said judgment in revision on 2121999.

Briefly, stated the facts are that Respondent No. 1 filed Suit No. 122 of 1984 in the Court of Judge Small Causes Court, Jhansi for recovery of arrears of rent, ejectment and damages with the allegations that the petitioners were tenants at monthly rent of Rs. 75 but after mutual agreement on 1111992 the rent was enhanced to Rs. 150 per month. He sent a notice demanding arrears of rent and ejectment on 881994 but the petitioner did not comply with the notice.

The petitioners filed writtenstatement and denied that the rent was enhanced as alleged by the plaintiff. They also prayed that they had made a deposit of the rent under Section 30 of U.P. Act No 13 (sic 30) of 1972 (in short the Act) at the rate of Rs. 75 per month and the same was to be adjusted. The trial Court decreed the suit on the finding that there was mutual agreement to enhance the rent and it was enhanced to Rs. 150 per month. The petitioners have not paid the amount within one month from the date of service of notice of demand, they were liable for eviction. The petitioners preferred a revision against the judgment of the trial Court. Respondent No. 3 has dismissed the revision on 2121999.

Sri B.N. Agrawal, learned Counsel for the petitioners has assailed the finding recorded by the authorities below. It is contended that there was no agreement between the parties to enhance, the rent and in absence of the cogent evidence the Court has acted illegally in holding that the rateof rent was Rs. 150 per month.

I have perused the impugned order. The trial Court has assessed the evidence on record and came to the conclusion that the rent was enhanced to Rs. 150 per month and it is based on the assessment of evidence. Respondent No. 1 was issuing rent receipt at the rate of Rs. 150 per month. I do not find that the finding recorded by the Courts below suffers from any manifest illegality.

The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.

In the end, learned Counsel for the petitioners prayed that some time may be granted to the petitioners to vacate the disputed premises. Considering the facts and circumstances of the ;ase, the petitioners are granted six months time to vacate the disputed premises provided they give an undertaking on affidavit before the Judge Small Causes Court, Respondent No. 2 within two weeks from today that they will vacate the disputed premises within the time granted by this Court and would hand over its peaceful possession to the landlordrespondent.