Dismissed

Hanif v. Mohammad Arif and 4 Others

Allahabad HC11 Apr 2019A227/2091/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition under Article 227, the petitioner sought to set aside judgments of the Small Causes Court and Special Judge regarding eviction and rent arrears. The High Court found no material error or illegality in the findings of the courts below regarding the applicability of the U.P. Act and the rate of rent. The petition was dismissed as devoid of merits.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed finding no merit and noting no material error in lower court orders.

Hanif Vs Mohammad Arif and 4 Others — Landlord and Tenant | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 26

¶2

Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 2091 of 2019

¶3

Petitioner :- Hanif Respondent :- Mohammad Arif And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Maohammd Nadeem,Ashish Kumar

¶4

Hon'ble Dr. Yogendra Kumar Srivastava,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Mohd. Nadeem, learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶6

The present petition has been filed making a prayer to set aside the judgment dated 28.10.2016 passed by the Judge Small Causes Court/Civil Judge, Senior Division/Fast Track Court, Farrukhabad in J.S.C.C. Suit No. 05 of 1982 (Mohammad Arif and others Vs. Hanif) and also the judgment dated 29.10.2018 passed by the IIIrd Additional District Judge, Special Judge (D.A.A.), Farrukhabad in S.C.C. Revision No. 03 of 2016 (Hanif Vs. Mohammad Arif and others).

¶7

The facts of the case indicate that the landlord-respondents had instituted a suit being S.C.C. Suit No.05 of 2007 against the petitioner-tenant for eviction from the shop in question along with claim for arrears of rent and mesne profit. The suit was decreed in terms of the judgment dated 10.8.2007 with a finding that U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 was not applicable to the premises in question and it was also held that the petitioner-tenant was liable to pay the rent at the rate of Rs. 200/- per month. Against the aforesaid judgment dated 10.8.2007, the petitioner preferred S.C.C. Revision No. 05 of 2007, which was allowed on 28.9.2013 and the matter was remanded for a fresh decision. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that while remanding the matter an observation had been made that the trial court had erred in treating the rent to be at the rate of Rs. 200/- per month.

¶8

Upon remand, the S.C.C Suit No. 05 of 1982 was partly allowed vide judgment dated 28.10.2016 in so far as the relief

¶9

in respect of eviction of the petitioner-tenant and claim for arrears of rent was concerned; however in respect of the rate of rent, the trial court came to the conclusion that the rent was at the rate of Rs. 100/- per month.

¶10

Against the aforesaid judgment dated 28.10.2016, the petitioner-tenant filed a S.C.C. Revision No. 03 of 2016 and the landlord-respondents filed S.C.C. Revision No. 04 of 2016, which were both consolidated and decided together by means of judgment dated 29.10.2018, and in terms thereof, both the revisions have been dismissed.

¶11

The trial court upon considering the facts of the case and the evidence on record at length, has held that the shop in dispute had been let out for a rent of Rs. 100/- per month. It has further been held that as the shop in question having been constructed in the year 1976, for a period of ten years thereafter the provisions of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 would not be applicable to the said shop and accordingly the notice given by the respondent-landlord was held to be valid, and in view thereof the tenancy of the petitioner stood terminated upon service of a valid notice for eviction. Accordingly, the suit of the respondent-landlord for eviction of the petitioner-tenant and arrears of rent was decreed.

¶12

The revisional court has also recorded concurrent findings of fact on the issues with regard to the non-applicability of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 and also the rate of rent being Rs. 100/per month and accordingly the revision has been dismissed.

¶13

The findings recorded by the courts below are based on a consideration of facts of the case and upon due appreciation of the evidence on record.

¶14

Counsel for the petitioner has not been able to point out any material error or illegality in the orders passed by the courts below to warrant interference.

¶15

The petition is devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed.

¶16

Order Date :- 11.4.2019 Pratima

¶17

(Dr. Y.K.Srivastava,J.)

Hanif v. Mohammad Arif and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hanif v. Mohammad Arif and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dayanand Inter College Saidnagali Vs Irfan Ali

Ajay Kumar Gupta and Others Vs Pradeep Kumar Chaubey

Dayanand Inter College Vs Satish Kumar

Man Mohan Kulsheshtra Alias Manmohan Vs Judge Small Causes Court, Aligarh and 8 Others

Jeenat Parvin Vs Masqoor Khan and 5 Others

Samodri Devi Vs Mohammad Mujib (Since Deceased) and 6 Others