State of U.P. and Another vs Bharat and Another

Sanjay Misra, J.—Heard Sri P.P. Chaudhary, learned Standing Counsel for the defendant-revisionists and Sri D.K. Chaddha on behalf of both the respondents, who states that he has already filed a caveat in this revision on 6.3.2013. Since both the respondents are represented this revision is being decided finally today itself with the consent of learned Counsel for the parties. The Stamp Reporter has reported laches of 22 days in bringing this revision. The explanation given by learned Standing Counsel for the appellant and since Counsel for the respondent has consented and has not opposed the con-donation of delay and, therefore, the delay is condoned having been sufficiently explained. Office is required to give a regular number to this revision.

According to learned Counsel for the appellant, the plaintiff-respondent filed S.C.C. Suit No. 23 of 2005, Bharat and another v. State of U.P. and others before the Additional District Judge, Court No. 14, Aligarh. In the said suit the plaintiff-respondent had claimed eviction of the defendants on the ground that they have served notice and terminated the tenancy. According to learned Standing Counsel, the Trial Court has found that notice u/s 106 of the Transfer of Property Act read with section 80 C.P.C. was a valid notice and he submits that on the said basis the impugned order has been passed. According to learned Standing Counsel the Trial Court has failed to consider that the notice dated 13.8.2005 and 22.8.2005 was not a valid notice and hence the suit could not have been filed on that basis. Learned Standing Counsel further submits that the defendant-revisionist was not in arrears of rent and the monthly rent had been paid to the plaintiff-respondent well within time each month and after institution of the suit it was deposited in the Court also within time each month. Learned Counsel states that under such circumstances, the impugned order requires to be set aside.

According to learned Counsel for the respondent, Sri Chaddha, the claim of the plaintiff-respondent was not for eviction of the defendant-revisionist on the basis of default in rent. He states that the relief claimed in the plaint was simpliciter for eviction of the defendant-revisionist for the reason that notice to quit u/s 106 of the Transfer of Property Act was given and although received the defendant-revisionist did not vacate the premises hence the suit was filed. He states that the findings recorded by the Trial Court is in accordance with law since the notice was simpliciter to quit and not on the basis of default in payment of rent.

Having considered the submission of learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record, it is quite clear from the impugned order as also the plaint annexed alongwith affidavit filed in support of this revision that the claim of the plaintiff-respondent was not of any arrears of rent and there was no allegation that the defendant-revisionist had defaulted in payment of rent. It was simply a notice u/s 106 of the Transfer of Property Act as also u/s 80 of the C.P.C. requiring the defendant-revisionist to quit premises in question since his tenancy had been terminated.

The Trial Court has recorded a finding that the notices were valid and hence when the notice was duly served on the defendant-revisionist and evidence to such effect was brought on record the suit has been rightly decreed. In so far as the application of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 is concerned, the finding of the Trial Court is that since the rent of the premises in question was more than prescribed rent under the Act, the said Act was not applicable to the premises in question. There is no material on record to prove the contrary. Under such circumstances, no error can be found in the impugned judgment and order dated 28.2.2013 passed in S.C.C. Suit No. 23 of 2005, Bharat and another v. State of U.P. and another by the Additional District Judge, Court No. 14, Aligarh. This revision is liable to be dismissed.

At this stage, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the defendant-revisionist has prayed that the revisionist be granted at least six months time to vacate the premises. Sri Chaddha, learned Counsel for the plaintiff-respondent states that in case the defendant-revisionist deposits the entire rent for the said six months within six weeks from today and gives an undertaking before the Trial Court to vacate the premises on or before 12.1.2014 he would consent to the time being granted.

In view of the aforesaid submission, this revision is finally disposed of as under:-

(1) The defendant-revisionist shall vacate the premises in question on or before 12.1.2014 and hand over the possession to the plaintiff-respondent without inducting any third party therein.

(2) The defendant-revisionist shall deposit the amount for use and occupation of the premises in question @ rent decreed by the Trial Court upto 12.1.2014 within six weeks from today.

(3) The defendant-revisionist shall give an undertaking before the Trial Court within six weeks from today to the above effect.

In the event of default in any of the above three conditions, the plaintiff-respondent shall be entitled to evict the defendant-revisionist, if necessary by applying for police force from the Executing Court.

The revision is accordingly disposed of. No order is passed as to costs.