Dismissed

M/S Superhouse Leather Ltd. v. Waqt S. Ahmadhasan -44 Ex. Ii, Kanpur

Allahabad HC15 May 2018SCCR/53/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The division bench dismissed the revision filed by M/s Superhouse Leather Ltd. against an eviction decree. Upholding the trial court's order, the court held that a valid notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act terminated the month-to-month tenancy, warranting eviction despite disputed rent default claims. Relief was granted subject to vacating possession by a fixed date.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner allowed two months to vacate the premises, subject to giving an undertaking to hand over vacant possession peacefully by 15.7.2018.

M/S Superhouse Leather Ltd. Vs Waqt S. Ahmadhasan -44… — Landlord and Tenant | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 26 Case :- S.C.C. REVISION No. - 53 of 2018 Revisionist :- M/S Superhouse Leather Ltd. Opposite Party :- Waqt S. Ahmadhasan -44 Ex. Ii, Kanpur Counsel for Revisionist :- Dharmendra Pratap Singh,Shri H. N. Singh

¶2

Counsel for Opposite Party :- Ashok Shankar Bhatnagar Hon'ble Mrs. Sangeeta Chandra,J.

¶3

Oral

¶4

This Revision has been filed by the revisionist challenging the judgment and order dated 31.3.2018 passed by the Additional District Judge, Court No. 10, Kanpur Nagar in JSCC Suit No. 86 of 2012 (Waqf S. Ahmad Hasan Vs. M/s Superhouse Leather Ltd,) with a prayer that the Suit filed by the plaintiff may also be dismissed with cost throughout.

¶5

I have heard Sri H.N. Singh, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the revisionist assisted by Sri D.P. Singh and Sri Ashok Shankar Bhatnagar for the respondent.

¶6

It has been argued by Sri H.N. Singh that five issues were framed for decision by the learned Trial Court. With regard to issue nos. 1, 2 & 3, the findings recorded by the learned Trial Court do not suffer from any error and he does not dispute that the revisionist is the tenant of house no. 15/202-B-1 and because it is a waqf property, the Rent Control Act is not applicable. He also does not dispute that the notice was received by the revisionist in its office and a reply to the same was also given by the counsel for the revisionist.

¶7

With regard to the issue no. 4 i.e. whether the revisionist /

¶8

tenant had committed default in payment of arrears of rent and with regard to issue no. 5 regarding relief given to the plaintiff, Sri H.N. Singh seriously disputes the findings recorded by the learned Trial Court.

¶9

According to learned Senior Counsel, the notice that was received by the revisionist related to alleged arrears of rent for nine months for the period starting w.e.f. 1.6.2011 and ending on 29.2.2012. With regard to not only this nine months period of arrears, but for a further period of nine months i.e. upto 31.12.2012 rent was deposited in the learned Trial Court on 21.11.2013, and therefore his client is entitled to the benefit of Section 114 of the Transfer of Property Act.

¶10

Learned Senior Counsel has tried to convince this Court regarding the applicability of Section 111(g) thereof, but this Court is not convinced with the arguments.

¶11

This Court feels that in the case of the revisionist Section 111(h) applies. With regard to Section 111(h), the finding recorded by the learned Trial Court is to the effect that notice was given to the revisionist to pay up the arrears of rent for nine months on 22.3.2012 and the said rent had to be paid within 30 days from the date of issuance of such notice. The admitted fact is that this arrears of rent for nine months plus other rent for nine month thereafter i.e w.e.f. June 2011 to December 2012 was paid in Court by the tenant only on 21.11.2013, default had occurred admittedly in the payment of arrears of rent.

¶12

Learned Trial Court has referred to judgment rendered by this Court in Smt. Prakash Rani @ Prakashwati Vs. VI Additional District Judge, Bulandshahar & others 2006 (2) ARC 296 where a Coordinate Bench of this Court has observed that if U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 is not applicable, then Suit for eviction is liable to be decreed after termination of tenancy without there being any default in payment of rent or any other ground. For termination of tenancy, it is not at all necessary that the tenant must be a defaulter. Month to month tenancy is terminable by one month notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act.

¶13

Learned counsel for the respondent has further pointed out another judgment to the same effect passed by another Coordinate Bench in Sunita Gupta Vs. Prabhat Chandra Tandon 2010 (81) Alld. LR 175 wherein this Court has observed in paragraph 4 that where the relationship of landlord and tenant is established and the monthly rate of rent is also not disputed, and it is also not disputed that the Rent Control Act is inapplicable, and that the notice served under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act does not suffer from any infirmity, then in that case, this Court cannot interfere in the order impugned passed by the learned Trial Court in Revision. If a valid notice was duly served under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, then the tenant is liable for eviction on the termination of tenancy.

¶14

Learned counsel for the respondent has also referred to

¶15

judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Parwati Bai Vs. Radhika 2013 (12) SCC 551 and paragraph 6 thereof wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that the singular question to be examined in the case was " whether the tenancy was terminated in accordance with the provisions of Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. The receipt of notice by the defendant was admitted in the written statement. The defendant had not raised any specific objection as to the validity of the notice. An objection as to the invalidity or infirmity of notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act should be raised specifically and at the earliest; else it will be deemed to have been waived even if there exists one. It cannot therefore be said that the notice suffered from any infirmity, and therefore, there was no reason for the Trial Court to observe that the tenant was paying or depositing rent in Court, and therefore not liable for eviction ---------- ."

¶16

The Supreme Court therefore directed that the Suit filed by the plaintiff for eviction of the defendant / respondent should be decreed by the learned Trial Court.

¶17

In view of the law settled by this Court and by the Hon'ble Supreme Court regarding the liability of the tenant for eviction, if a notice is validly served under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, I do not find any legal or factual infirmity in the order impugned.

¶18

Consequently, the judgment and order dated 31.3.2018 passed in SCC Suit No. 86 of 2012 is affirmed.

¶19

This Revision is dismissed.

¶20

However, at this stage, learned Senior Counsel, Sri H.N. Singh has prayed for sometime to be granted to the revisionist to vacate the disputed premises. This Court gives two months time to the revisionist to vacate the premises, subject to undertaking being given in this regard by the revisionist / tenant before the learned Trial Court saying that he will handover vacant possession peacefully and without demur to the plaintiff / respondent on 15.7.2018.

¶21

Order Date :- 15.5.2018 Arif

M/S Superhouse Leather Ltd. v. Waqt S. Ahmadhasan -44 Ex. Ii, Kanpur

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Superhouse Leather Ltd. v. Waqt S. Ahmadhasan -44 Ex. Ii, Kanpur

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mukteshwar Tiwari Vs XVIth Additional District Judge,Kanpur Nagar and Another

Bilal Ahmad Vs Additional Civil Judge and Another

Shobhit Kapoor Vs Additional District Judge, Kanpur Nagar and 2 Others

Deepak Verma Vs Pramod Kumar Goyel and 2 Others

Riyaz Ali Vs Additional City Magistrate II and Another

Shri Karandeep Singh Vs Mohit Maheshwari and 3 Others