Dismissed

Rakesh Kumar v. U.P.State Road Transport Corporation through Its

Allahabad HC23 Sept 2022SCCR/124/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This revision petition challenged a judgment in a shop ejectment suit filed by the U.P.S.R.T.C. against Rakesh Kumar. The High Court upheld the trial court's decree, finding that the landlord-tenant relationship was established by the revisionist's admissions and service of notice, granting the court jurisdiction to decide the matter.

What did the court decide?

The revision petition was dismissed. Possession of shop no.4 to be handed over to U.P.S.R.T.C. and payment of arrears upheld.

Rakesh Kumar Vs U.P.State Road Transport Corporation… — Property and Title | Allahabad HC (2022)

Reserved

In Chamber

Case :- S.C.C. REVISION No. - 124 of 2022 Revisionist :- Rakesh Kumar Opposite Party :- U.P.State Road Transport Corporation Through Its Counsel for Revisionist :- Dinesh Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party :- U.S. Singh Visen

¶5

Hon'ble Vipin Chandra Dixit,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Virendra Singh, learned counsel for revisionist, Sri U.S. Singh Visen, learned counsel appearing for plaintiff-respondent and perused the record.

¶7

The brief facts of the case is that the respondent Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to as 'U.P.S.R.T.C.') has filed an ejectment suit against the revisionist which was registered as S.C.C. Suit No.13 of 2016 for ejectment as well as recovery of arrears of rent and damages. The suit was filed with the averments that revisionist-defendant was tenant in the shop no.4 situated at Agra Bijli Ghar Bus Station, Agra on the monthly rent of Rs.5,000/- besides municipal taxes. The tenancy of revisionist was commenced from 1.2.2003. The defendant-revisionist has committed default in payment of rent and as such a notice was served to the defendant on 28.12.2015 for termination of tenancy. The legal notice was replied by the defendant through Ashok Kumar Gupta, Advocate admitting the outstanding dues and a request was made that outstanding amount towards rent will be paid in installments, which was refused by the U.P.S.R.T.C. The defendant-tenant neither paid outstanding arrears of rent nor vacate the shop in question, hence the suit was filed for eviction from shop no.4 and for recovery of outstanding rent of Rs.2,05,765/- and also for damages for use and occupation at the rate of Rs.30,000/- per month.

¶8

The ejectment suit was contested by the defendant-revisionist by filing written statement denying the plaint allegations. It was

¶9

¶10

pleaded by the defendant-revisionist that only open land was given to the defendant-revisionist on payment of Rs.5,000/- per month as rent and it was agreed by the parties that defendant-revisionist will construct the shop over the open land. It is further pleaded that land was allotted to the defendant-revisionist for 10 years and since it was an open land the J.S.C.C. suit is not maintainable. It is further pleaded that no notice was ever served upon the defendant. It is also pleaded that shop in question is within the local limit of Cantonment area and the rent is more than Rs.2,000/- per month, the provisions of U.P. Act No.13 of 1972 is not applicable and the J.S.C.C. suit is not maintainable and the J.S.C.C. Court has got no jurisdiction to decide the suit.

¶11

The plaintiff-U.P.S.R.T.C. had produced Bhagwan Das as P.W.1 and also produced documentary evidence to prove that the shop in question was allotted to the defendant on payment of rent at the rate of Rs.5,000/- per month and there was default in payment of rent.

¶12

The defendant-revisionist had filed documentry evidence but no witness was produced by the defendant.

¶13

Learned court below after considering the evidence and material which are available on record had recorded the finding that shop was allotted to the defendant-revisionist. Learned trial court has further recorded the finding that as per admission of the defendant in Original Suit No.891 of 2008 and reply to the notice dated 28.12.2015, the relation of landlord and tenant is exist between the parties and the J.S.C.C. suit for eviction of tenant is maintainable.

¶14

The suit filed by U.P.S.R.T.C. was allowed vide judgment and order dated 26.5.2022 passed by learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court No.26, Agra in J.S.C.C. Suit No.13 of 2016. The defendant was directed to hand over the possession of shop no.4 to U.P.S.R.T.C. and also pay the outstanding rent of Rs.2,05,765/-

¶15

¶16

with 9% interest. The defendant was also directed to pay Rs.30,000/per month as damages and occupation to the U.P.S.R.T.C.

¶17

Being aggrieved with the judgment and order of J.S.C.C. dated 26.5.2022, the present revision has been preferred by the defendanttenant.

¶18

It is submitted by learned counsel for the defendant-revisionist that only open land measuring 5 x10x10 was allotted to the revisionist with the permission to construct the shop with angle, iron and tin and since open land was allotted to the revisionist-defendant, the suit before the Judge, Small Causes Court is not maintainable and the court below had erred in decreeing the suit. It is further submitted that notice dated 28.12.2015 was never served to the revisionist and the revisionist never authorized to Ashok Kumar Gupta, Advocate for sending reply to the notice dated 28.12.2015. Lastly, it is submitted that the provisions of Act No.13 of 1972 is not applicable in the present case and as such the present suit before the Court of Judge, Small Causes Court is not maintainable.

¶19

On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for respondentU.P.S.R.T.C. has submitted that the shop was allotted to the revisionist and the revisionist himself has admitted in the original suit filed by him being Original Suit No.891 of 2008 that shop no.4 was allotted to the revisionist on payment of Rs.5,000/- per month as rent. It is further submitted that notice was duly served and replied by revisionist and it is incorrect to say that no notice was ever served. Lastly, it is submitted that the revisionist-defendant has contested the J.S.C.C. suit but has not deposited the outstanding rent and as such the court below has struck off the defence of the revisionist.

¶20

Considered the rival submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

¶21

¶22

It is evident from the evidence and materials, which are available on record that shop no.4 was allotted to the revisionist on payment of Rs.5,000/- per month as rent and it is admitted by the revisionist in Original Suit No.891 of 2008 that shop was obtained by him on payment of rent as Rs.5,000/- per month and from reply to the legal notice the relation of landlord-tenant between the parties was established and the J.S.C. Court has got jurisdiction to decide the suit. Since there was default in payment of outstanding rent, the suit was rightly decreed by the learned court below and there is no illegality in any manner.

¶23

No ground for interference is made out. The S.C.C. revision is liable to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed.

¶24

Order Date :- 23.09.2022 Kpy

¶25

Digitally signed by KAVLESHWAR PRASAD YADAV Date: 2022.09.27 11:13:45 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Rakesh Kumar v. U.P.State Road Transport Corporation through Its

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rakesh Kumar v. U.P.State Road Transport Corporation through Its

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Smt. Urmila Devi Urf Dharmwati and 2 Others

Krishan Pal and Another Vs Bhagwati Prasad and Another

Mukut Singh Vs Sri Satish Mehra and Others

Rakesh Kumar Vs U.P.S.R.T.C through Its Regional Manager, Agra

Ashok Kumar@ Ashok Yadav Vs U.P.State Road Transport Corporation through Its Rm

Smt. Neelam Yadav and Another Vs Shree Devi and 2 Others