Mohd. Shakeel vs Main Khan

Manoj Misra, J.—Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.

By this petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 21.10.2016 passed by the Additional District Judge, Court No.19, Allahabad in S.C.C. Revision No. 259 of 2012 by which the revision preferred by the revisionist, has been dismissed.

A perusal of the record would go to show that the landlord-respondent had instituted a suit for a decree of ejectment against the defendant-petitioner as also for recovery of arrears of rent and damages on the ground of default as well as for making material alterations.

The trial court had framed as many as five issues.

Issue no.1 was whether the monthly rent included water tax or not. The second issue was whether material alterations had been made by the defendant in the premises which had reduced its utility/value. The third issue was whether the defendant had been a defaulter in payment of rent. The fourth issue was as to whether the plaintiff was entitled to the benefit of deposit made under Section 30 (1) of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 as also whether he was entitled to the benefit of the provisions of sub-section (4) of section 20 of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972; and the fifth issue was as to what relief the plaintiff was entitled to.

The trial court after examining the evidence on record came to the conclusion that water tax was not included in the monthly rent payable; that the tenant had constructed a latrine over the Chabutra without the permission of the landlord which amounted to making material alterations; that the defendant had been a defaulter in payment of rent; and that the defendant was not entitled to the benefit of the provisions of sub-section (4) of section 20 of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 because the entire amount was not deposited. Accordingly, the suit was decreed. The revisional court examined the matter in detail and affirmed the judgment and decree passed by the court below. It also found that the defendants had made material alterations in the premises by constructing a latrine over the Chabutra which had diminished the value of the accommodation as also reduced its utility.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to demonstrate as to how the findings returned by the courts below are bad in law. It has not been demonstrated that any material evidence has been ignored or misread or any inadmissible evidence has been considered for recording the findings. Accordingly, this Court does not find any good reason to interfere with concurrent findings of fact recorded by the courts below.

At this stage, the learned counsel for the petitioner prayed for sometime to vacate the premises.

In view of the above, this petition is disposed of by observing that no ground is made out to interfere with the orders impugned. However, it is provided that pursuant to the orders impugned, the petitioner shall not be evicted from the accommodation in dispute up to 31.05.2017 provided the petitioner deposits the decretal amount after adjusting the amount already deposited in court and submit an undertaking before the trial court that he shall handover vacant and peaceful possession of the premises in dispute to the landlord-respondent by 01st June, 2017. The said deposit and undertaking must be furnished by 15.03.2017. In case, the deposit as well as undertaking is not deposited/submitted by 15.03.2017, the decree shall become executable forthwith. In case, the undertaking is submitted by 15.03.2017 and the petitioner fails to vacate the premises by 01st June, 2017 then it shall not only be open to the landlord-respondent to execute the decree passed against the petitioner but it shall also be open to the landlord-respondents to initiate contempt proceedings against the petitioner for violation of the undertaking.

With the aforesaid observations, the petition is disposed of.