Partly allowed

Manoj Ranjan Pandey @ Raju (Deceased) and 3 Others v. Smt. Sudha Gangwar

Allahabad HC23 Apr 2019A227/2886/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition under Article 227 challenging eviction and revision orders in a landlord-tenant dispute, the High Court dismissed the petition for lack of merits. The court granted eight months for vacating the premises upon deposit of rent and furnishing an undertaking, subject to agreed conditions.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed on merits. Eight months granted to vacate premises subject to deposit of Rs.6,000 and undertaking to vacate.

Manoj Ranjan Pandey @ Raju (Deceased) and 3 Others Vs… — Landlord and Tenant | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 58

¶2

Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 2886 of 2019 Petitioner :- Manoj Ranjan Pandey @ Raju (Deceased) And 3 Others Respondent :- Smt. Sudha Gangwar Counsel for Petitioner :- Sunil Kumar Srivastava,Padmaker Pandey

¶3

Hon'ble Dr. Yogendra Kumar Srivastava,J.

¶4

Heard Sri Sunil Kumar Srivastava and Sri Padmaker Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri S.K. Chaubey, learned counsel appearing for the sole respondent.

¶5

By means of the present petition the order dated 11.04.2017 passed by Judge, Small Causes Court/Civil Judge (Senior Division), Farrukhabad in SCC Suit No.01 of 2009 (Smt. Sudha Gangwar Vs. Manoj Ranjan Pandey @ Raju) and also the order dated 02.02.2019 passed by VII-Additional District & Sessions Judge, Farrukhabad in SCC Revision No.11 of 2017 (Manoj Ranjan Pandey @ Raju Vs. Smt. Sudha Gangwar & Ors.) are sought to be challenged.

¶6

Briefly stated facts of the case are that SCC Suit No.01 of 2009 was filed by the respondent-landlord after service of notice dated 14.11.2008 by registered post in terms of which the petitioner-tenants were given notice to vacate the premises and to make payment of arrears of rent as agreed to in terms of the rent agreement.

¶7

The trial court upon considering the facts of the case and the pleadings of the parties recorded a finding that the provisions of U.P. Act No.13 of 1972 were applicable to the premises in question. It was further held that in terms of the rent agreement the tenants had defaulted in payment of rent and after service of notice dated 14.11.2018 the suit for eviction and arrears of rent

¶8

had been filed. It has also been taken note of that the service of notice was duly proved. The oral evidence of the defendanttenants has been considered wherein the default in payment of rent has been admitted as also the fact that in terms of the rent agreement the tenancy stood terminated w.e.f. 08.12.2003. The trial court has also taken note of the fact that an application filed by the tenants seeking benefit of Section 20(4) of U.P. Act No.13 of 1972 had been rejected earlier.

¶9

On the basis of aforementioned findings i.e. the factum of notice having been duly served on the tenant and also the tenant having admitted to being in arrears of rent, the suit for eviction and arrears of rent was decreed by judgment dated 11.04.2017.

¶10

Against the aforesaid order the petitioner-tenants filed a revision, SCC Revision No.11 of 2017 and the only ground which was pleaded in the revision was with regard to the fact that the power of attorney holder had appeared as a witness and had deposed on behalf of the landlady, which according to the petitioner-tenants was not permissible. The revisional court upon duly taking note of the fact that the petitioner-tenants had admitted the execution of the registered rent agreement dated 09.12.2002 with Mahesh Chandra Gangwar, the power of attorney holder and husband of the land lady Smt. Sudha Gangwar, it could not be said that the aforementioned Mahesh Chandra Gangwar was not having knowledge of the facts of the case or that he was not entitled to appear as a witness and give his evidence. Also, placing reliance upon the judgment of this Court in Sunehri Lal Vs. Smt. Premwati 2015 (109) ALR 389 the revisional Court has held that the power of attorney holder being the husband of the landlady was a competent witness.

¶11

Counsel for the petitioners has not been able to point out any

¶12

material error or illegality in the orders passed by the courts below.

¶13

Petition lacks merits and is accordingly dismissed.

¶14

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

¶15

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

¶16

As jointly agreed, the petitioners are granted eight months' time to vacate the demised premises provided that they furnish an undertaking before the trial court, within four weeks from today, that they would vacate the demised premises within eight months from today. The petitioners shall also deposit rent/damages at the rate of Rs.750/- per month i.e. total sum of Rs.6,000/- for the eight month period within four weeks from today, as agreed to by counsel for the parties. In case of default of any of the above conditions, the protection granted shall stand vacated and it would be open to the respondent-landlord to execute the decree.

¶17

Order Date :- 23.4.2019 Shahroz

¶18

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

Manoj Ranjan Pandey @ Raju (Deceased) and 3 Others v. Smt. Sudha Gangwar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manoj Ranjan Pandey @ Raju (Deceased) and 3 Others v. Smt. Sudha Gangwar

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

Om Prakash Srivastava Vs Mohammad Maudood

Kishan Kumar Gupta Vs Gaurav Kumar Agrawal and Another

Vijay Kumar Mishra Vs Durgash Kumar Shukla

Anil Kumar Gupta Vs Bhola Nath and Another

Majeed and 5 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Smt. Anjali Guha Vs Shree Shyam Mandal Trust Varanasi