At, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ MITHAL
For the Appellant: Abhijeet Mukherji, Sri Kant, Advocates. For the Respondent: Gautam Baghel, Advocate.
1. Heard Sri Sri Kant, learned counsel appearing for the defendants-revisionists and Dr. S.B.Singh, Advocate holding brief of Sri Gautam Baghel, learned counsel for the plaintiff-respondent.
2. The suit of the plaintiff-respondent for arrears of rent and eviction has been decreed vide judgment and order dated 16.7.2014 passed in SCC Suit No.1 of 2006 (M/s. Birla International Pvt. Ltd. v. M/s. Ajaz Carpets and others).
3. In the suit the defence of the defendants-revisionists was ordered to be struck off under Order 15, Rule 5 C.P.C. vide order dated 12.2.2013 which was affirmed by the High Court.
4. The court below in decreeing the suit held that the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties stood established and that the defendants-revisionists are the tenants of the premises in dispute at a rate of Rs. 3,500/- p.m. The tenancy stands validly determined vide notice dated 9.6.2004 under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act and that the defendants-revisionists are in arrears of rent w.e.f. 17.5.2003.
5. The submission of learned counsel for the defendants-revisionists is that the finding with regard to rate of rent is without evidence and the court below has erred in holding that the property is outside the purview of the U.P. Act No.13 of 1972.
6. The submission is devoid of merit. The parties are not disputing that a sub-lease agreement dated 1.4.1984 was executed between them which provided for the rent of Rs. 3,500/- p.m.
7. The finding regarding the rate of rent is a finding of fact which is not liable to be disturbed in exercise of revisional jurisdiction under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Causes Court Act, 1887 as has been held in Smt. Radhaji Maharani and another v. The VIIth Addl. District Judge, Meerut and another 1983 ARC 39 and in Prem Kumar Gupta v. Kishor Kumar Gupta and another 2012 (3) ARC 689.
8. In view of the fact that the rent of the property is Rs. 3,500/- per month it is exempt from the operation of the U.P. Act No.13 of 1972 by virtue of Section 2(1)(g) of the Act which provides that the Act would not apply to the building whose monthly rent exceeds Rs. 2000/-.
9. No other point has been pressed before me rather the learned counsel appearing for the defendants-revisionists at this stage prays for some reasonable time, at least of one year to vacate the property in dispute.
10. Dr. S.B. Singh, learned counsel for the plaintiff-respondent opposes the grant of one year time to the defendants-revisionist but leaves it upon the Court to grant some suitable time to vacate the premises in dispute.
11. The defendants-revisionists are settled in business from the said property and obviously they require some time to vacate it.
12. Accordingly, in the interest of justice, six months' time is allowed to the defendants-revisionists to vacate the premises in dispute provided an undertaking on affidavit is given by one of the partners of the defendants-revisionists No.1 on behalf of all of them in the court below within a period of one month from today that they will vacate the property within time allowed above and handover its pe
Please Login To View The Full Judgment!
aceful and vacant possession to the plaintiff-respondent and they will also clear all dues before vacating the same. In the event undertaking as above is not submitted within time allowed above, it will be open for the plaintiff-respondent to executed the decree immediately. 13. The revision is accordingly dismissed with the above concession.