Partly allowed

Raj Kumar Saini and 3 Others v. Furquan Ali

Allahabad HC11 Jan 2019A227/143/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court, under Article 227, modified an order directing petitioners to deposit premium in a suit for eviction. The Court allowed adjustment of due rent against the deposit, reducing the amount payable, while stipulating the funds remain with the court till the suit's conclusion.

What did the court decide?

Directing reduction in the premium deposit from Rs. 3,50,000 to Rs. 2,42,000 after adjusting due rent.

Raj Kumar Saini and 3 Others Vs Furquan Ali — Execution and Attachment | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 19

¶2

Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 143 of 2019

¶3

Petitioner :- Raj Kumar Saini And 3 Others Respondent :- Furquan Ali Counsel for Petitioner :- Archana Singh,Shreeprakash Singh

¶4

Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Gupta,J.

¶5

The petitioners being plaintiffs in SCC Suit No. 10 of 2016 instituted against the opposite parties for recovery of arrears of rent and for eviction have been called upon by impugned order dated 12.4.2017 to deposit a sum of Rs. 3,50,000/- in court. The said direction has been issued having regard to the admitted fact that Rs. 3,50,000/- was taken as pagri by the petitioners at the time of inception of tenancy. The tenant opposite party has shown his willingness to vacate the demise premises provided the premium/ pagri amount is refunded to him. It is not disputed that the premium amount of Rs. 3,50,000/- which was taken by petitioners was liable to adjustment at the time the tenant vacates the premises. The order passed by the Trial Court has been affirmed by the revisional court and both the orders are now subject to challenge in the instant petition.

¶6

The only submission of learned counsel for the petitioners is that certain rent has fallen due but which has not been taken into consideration by the courts below while directing the petitioners to deposit the premium amount in court. According to him, the arrears of rent would add up to Rs.1,08,000/- as of date.

¶7

Indisputably, the liability to pay rent continues till the tenant actually vacate the premises. Therefore, this Court finds some substance in the contention of learned counsel for the petitioners that the amount that has fallen due as rent is liable to be adjusted against the amount which has been directed to be deposited in Court. He has placed reliance on an order passed by this Court on 24.9.2018 in matter Under Article 227 bearing No. 7161 of 2018 in identical facts and circumstances permitting reduction of Rs. 70,000/- from the premium amount.

¶8

Accordingly, the instant petition is also disposed of by modifying the impugned order to the extent that petitioners would be required to deposit Rs. 2,42,000/- in the court below within three weeks from today. The amount shall remain deposited in the court and shall not be permitted to be withdrawn by the tenant till the suit is finally decided and the rights and liabilities of the parties are finally determined.

¶9

The petition stands disposed of accordingly.

¶10

In case the opposite party feels aggrieved by this order it shall be open to him to apply for recall/ modification.

¶11

(Manoj Kumar Gupta, J.)

¶12

Order Date :- 11.1.2019 Nadeem Ahmad

Raj Kumar Saini and 3 Others v. Furquan Ali

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raj Kumar Saini and 3 Others v. Furquan Ali

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Chotey Lal Gupta Vs Smt. Sneh Lata Jain

Zainul Abdeen Vs Judge Small Causes Court, Kanpur Nagar and 5 Others

Nisar Vs Bhagwan Das

Smt. Moona Begum Dead and Others Vs Liyaquat Ali and Others

Shiv Kumar Vs Prahlad and Another

H.C. Maurya Vs Kamala Prasad and Ohters