Partly allowed

Arun Kumar Suri and 2 Others v. Addl. District Judge/Special Judge(Ec Act) Lakhimpur Kheri and 6 Others

Allahabad HC12 Nov 2024/4149/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging an eviction decree and revision order, noting no factual error warranting interference. However, granting relief, the court ordered the petitioner to vacate within six months by depositing arrears and executing an undertaking for handover by April 30, 2025.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner granted six months to vacate premises subject to execution of undertaking and deposit of entire decretal amount within one month; failure leads to immediate eviction.

Arun Kumar Suri and 2 Others Vs Addl. District… — Execution and Attachment | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:74661

¶2

Court No. - 7

¶3

Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 4149 of 2023

¶4

Petitioner :- Arun Kumar Suri And 2 Others Respondent :- Addl. District Judge/Special Judge(Ec Act) Lakhimpur Kheri And 6 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Samarth Saxena,Durgesh Kumar Shukla

¶5

Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.

¶6

1 . Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner.

¶7

2 . The present petition has been filed challenging the order dated 21.12.20213 passed in the small causes case directing the eviction of the petitioner from the premises in question and delivery of its possession to the plaintiff as well as the order dated 31.05.2023 whereby, the revision has been dismissed.

¶8

3 . From the perusal of the records, it appears that the landlord had filed a suit for eviction and arrears of rent after serving a notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. The tenant, the petitioner herein had denied the allegations, and based upon the pleadings as many as four issues were framed with regard to the default of service of notice, the relationship of landlord and tenant and whether the petitioner was entitled to the benefit of Section 20(4) of the U.P. Rent Control Act, 1972 or not. The trial court recorded the findings of fact on all the issues in favour of the landlord. The notices were found to be duly served and the default was also established, even the amount, which was required to be deposited to get the benefit flowing from Section 20 (4) of the Rent Control Act, 1972, was found to be not paid as per the statute and based upon the said finds of fact, the suit was decreed along with arrears of rent and interest. The petitioner preferred a revision under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act which too was dismissed vide order dated 31.05.2023 by the revisional court as before the revisional court also the petitioner could not demonstrate any error with regard to the findings of fact.

¶9

4 . In view of the findings of fact recorded by both the courts below, I do not find any error warranting interference under Article 226 of the Constitution has been shown.The writ petition is dismissed accordingly.

¶10

5 . However, on the request of the Counsel for the petitioners, he

¶11

is granted six months time to vacate the premises subject to the petitioner executing an undertaking in the form of affidavit within four weeks from today. The undertaking shall be filed before the Small Causes Court.

¶12

6 . The petitioner shall undertake in the affidavit that he shall handover to vacate the premises to the landlord and no other else on or before 30.04.2025.

¶13

7 . The petitioner shall deposited the entire decretal amount within a months from today. The amount deposited shall be paid to the landlord on moving an appropriate application.

¶14

8 . In the event of default in filing the undertaking or in payment of arrears of rent as directed above, the benefit granted by this order of six months shall come to an end and the respondentlandlord would be at liberty to execute the said order of eviction in accordance with law.

¶15

Order Date :- 12.11.2024 akverma

¶16

Digitally signed by :- ASHOK KUMAR VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Arun Kumar Suri and 2 Others v. Addl. District Judge/Special Judge(Ec Act) Lakhimpur Kheri and 6 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arun Kumar Suri and 2 Others v. Addl. District Judge/Special Judge(Ec Act) Lakhimpur Kheri and 6 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

Smt.Suman Vs State of U.P. through Collector Balrampur and Others

Smt. Vijay Laxmi Goswami Vs Anil Kumar Giri

U.P.State Spining Mill Company Ltd.Raebareli Thru. M.D. Vs Deputy Labour Commissioner Lko. Region Lucknow and Ors.

Bhure @ Raees vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Lko

Smt. Vandana Mishra Vs Diwakar Nath Mishra

Smt. Shahida Begum Vs Sirajuddin Qureshi