Mahavir Prasad vs Vllth Addl. District Judge,Kanpur Nagar

O.P. Garg, J.—Heard Sri A.S. Srivastava, learned Counsel for the petitioners as well as Sri Rajesh Tandon appearing on behalf of respondent No. 3.

The petitioners, who are tenants, were the defendants in the SCC Suit No. 453 of 1995 for their ejectment and recovery of arrears of rent, mesne profits on the ground of their having committed default in payment of rent. The suit was decreed on 1811999. The petitioners preferred a Civil Revision Application No. 2 of 1999 under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act. It was dismissed on 3112001. It is in these circumstances that the petitionertenants have come before this Court.

Sri A.S. Srivastava assailed the findings recorded by the two Courts below and look the plea that no notice as contemplated under Section 20 (1) (a) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972) (hereinafter referred to as the Act) was served on the petitioners before the institution of the suit and that the finding in respect of default in payment of rent by the petitioners is based on nonappraisal of the evidence available on record and, therefore, the same is bad in law. It was urged that the petitioners have deposited much more amount than actually payable and demanded. Sri Rajesh Tandon repelled all these submissions.

After perusing the record, I find that the concurrent findings recorded by the two Courts below do not suffer from any illegality or infirmity. Both the Courts below have recorded every cogent and well discussed reasons to arrive at the conclusion that the petitioners have committed default in payment of rent and, therefore, are liable for eviction. A composite notice of demand and to quit was served upon the petitioners before the institution of the suit. No other notice under Section 20 of the Act was required.

It is not a fit case in which interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is warranted. The writ petition is dismissed.

After dismissal of the petition, Sri A.S. Srivastava appearing on behalf of the petitionertenants, prayed that some time may be allowed to the petitioners to shift to another alternative accommodation.

This prayer appears to be reasonable. In case the petitioners deposit the entire decretal amount as well as damages in advance for the period upto 31122001 before the trial Court by 1552001 and also file an affidavit undertaking that they shall vacate the accommodation in question and deliver peaceful possession to the landlord respondent No. 3 without any hindrance by 31122001, the decree of eviction passed against the petitioners in SCC Suit No. 453 of 1995 on 1811999 shall not be executed. In case the petitioners fail to deposit the amount aforesaid or to file on affidavit by 15th May, 2001, the decree for eviction shall become executable all at once after 1552001. Petition dismissed.