Dismissed

Naim Ahmad v. Additional District Judge and 12 Others

Allahabad HC15 Apr 2019A227/2659/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court dismissed a petition under Article 227 challenging eviction proceedings where rent was enhanced via agreement, excluding rent act applicability. The lawsuit was decreed based on valid termination notice, and facts were not found wanting for interference.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner granted six months' time to vacate premises upon depositing decretal amount and six months' rent.

Naim Ahmad Vs Additional District Judge and 12 Others — Partition | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 26

¶2

Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 2659 of 2019

¶3

Petitioner :- Naim Ahmad Respondent :- Additional District Judge And 12 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Atul Dayal Counsel for Respondent :- Hari Mohan Srivastava

¶4

Hon'ble Dr. Yogendra Kumar Srivastava,J.

¶5

Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

¶6

By means of the present petition, the order dated 20.09.2017 passed by the Judge Small Causes Court/Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kasganj in SCC Suit No.06 of 2015 and also the order dated 07.03.2019 passed by Additional District Judge/FTC, Court No.2, Kasganj in SCC Revision No.08 of 2017 are sought to be challenged.

¶7

The facts of the case indicate that SCC Suit no.06 of 2015 was filed for arrears of rent and ejectment of the tenant principally on the ground that the provisions of U.P. Act No.13 of 1972 were not applicable inasmuch as the agreed rent was Rs.2050/per month besides taxes, and the tenancy was terminated in terms of notice dated 18.08.2015.

¶8

The undisputed facts of the case are that the rent was enhanced to Rs.2050/- per month on the basis of an agreement between the parties w.e.f. 01.01.2015. Once this is the admitted position, clearly the provisions of the U.P. Act No.13 of 1972 are not applicable and upon the notice terminating the tenancy having been duly served, and the trial court having recorded a finding that the notice had been validly served, the judgment dated 20.09.2017 in terms of which the suit was decreed, cannot be faulted with.

¶9

Learned counsel for the petitioner does not dispute the fact that

¶10

the rent as agreed between the parties was Rs.2050/-, and in view of this he also does not dispute the fact that the provisions of U.P. Act No.13 of 1972 were not applicable to the demised premises.

¶11

No other submission has been made.

¶12

Concurrent findings of fact have been recorded by the courts below and this Court does not find any good ground which may warrant interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

¶13

The petition lacks merits and is accordingly dismissed.

¶14

At this stage, the counsel for the petitioner prayed that some time may be granted to the petitioner to vacate the demised premises.

¶15

Counsel for the respondents has no objection to the prayer so made.

¶16

As jointly agreed, the petitioner is granted six months' time to vacate the demised premises provided that the entire decreetal amount and also the agreed rent for a period of six months, are deposited before the trial court within one month, and also an undertaking is furnished that the petitioner would vacate the demised premises within six months from today. In case of default of any of the above conditions, the protection granted shall stand vacated and it shall be open to the respondentlandlords to execute the decree.

¶17

Order Date :- 15.4.2019 Shahroz

¶18

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

Naim Ahmad v. Additional District Judge and 12 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Naim Ahmad v. Additional District Judge and 12 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Co-Operative Assurance Company Limited Vs Rent Control Eviction Officer /City Magistrate and Another

Ajay Arora and 5 Others Vs Luxmi Narayan Gupta and Another

Deepak Singh Vs Jhallar and Another

Sanjay Kumar and 2 Others Vs Additional District Magistrate/Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Varanasi and 2 Others

Kailash Chaddha Vs Brig. O.P. Asthana and Another

Expression Ethnic Wear Co. and Another Vs Ajay Kumar Maurya