Ramesh Chandra vs Vijay Mehendru

Lok Pal Singh, J

This revision is directed against the judgment and decree dated 15.03.2019 passed by Judge, Small Cause Courts / 1st Addl. District Judge, Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar, in S.C.C. Suit No. 05 of 2012, "Smt. Vijay Mehendru Vs. Ramesh Chandra", whereby the landlord's suit for recovery of arrears of rent and for eviction of the defendant (revisionist herein) has been decreed.

Brief facts of the case are that, plaintiff-respondent is the owner and landlord of the shop situated at Azadnagar Tanda Ujjain, Kashpur, District Udham Singh Nagar. Defendant-revisionist was her tenant in the said shop. The property in dispute was let out in the year 2006 and the rate of rent was fixed at Rs. 1100/- per month, including taxes. The defendant-revisionist is tenant over the property in question on the rent at the rate of Rs.1,100/- per month including taxes. It is contended that the property in dispute is in the limits of Nagar Palika and, as such, the provisions of U.P. Act no. 13 of 1972 are applicable to it. It is contended that despite repetitive demands, the tenant did not evict the premise in question then the landlord on 27.08.2012, sent a notice under section 106 of the Transfer of the Property Act 1882 to the tenant and terminated his tenancy and requested him to vacate the premise before expiry of 30 days period of the notice then the respondent landlord constrained to institute the suit against the tenant for realisation of rent and eviction.

Revisionist-defendant contested the suit, however, admitted the relationship of landlord and tenant but claim that his tenancy is protected under the provisions of U.P. Act no. 13 of 1972. Learned trial court having recorded the finding that provisions of U.P. Act no. 13 of 1972 are not applicable and revisionist tenant has committed default in payment of rent, passed decree of eviction against him. Hence, this revision.

Learned counsel for the revisionist would submit that since this Court does not find favour to the revisionist, some reasonable time may be granted to the revisionist to vacate the premise in question.

In view of the above, the tenant revisionist is granted time upto 30.06.2021 to handover peaceful possession of the premises in question to the respondent-landlord subject to the revisionist giving an undertaking within one month from today before the Judge, Small Cause Court to the following effect:

(1) The revisionist shall file an undertaking before the Judge, Small Cause Court, Kashipur on or before 25.07.2019 that he shall vacate the premises in question on or before 30.06.2021 and handover vacant and peaceful possession of the premises in question to the landlord.

(2) The revisionist should undertake to deposit the entire decretal amount before the Judge, Small Cause Court within a period of 3 months from today subject to adjustment of any amount already deposited before the court below as well as the amount paid to the landlord.

(3) The revisionist should continue to pay the rent for the use and occupation of the premises in question on each succeeding month till vacation of the accommodation on 7th day of each month. She shall pay the enhanced rent at the rate of Rs. 4000/- per month to the landlord from 01.07.2019.

(4) The revisionist shall not induct any other person in the premises in question.

(5) In the event of default of any of the aforesaid conditions, the revisionist shall not be entitled to continue in the premises in question up to 30.06.2021 and the decree shall be executed forthwith.

The judgment and decree dated 15.03.2019 passed by Judge, Small Cause Courts / 1st Addl. District Judge, Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar in S.C.C. Suit No. 05 of 2012, Smt. Vijay Mehendru Vs. Ramesh Chandra is modified accordingly. The civil revision stands partly allowed.

No order as to costs.