Partly allowed

Sanjiv Kumar Sah @ Guddu Prasad @ Sanjiv Kumar and Ors. v. Smt. Urmila Singh and Ors.

Patna HC19 Mar 2013C.R./22/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a civil revision against an eviction decree. Balancing equities, the court modified the eviction timeline to December 31, 2013, requiring petitioners to vacate and pay rent in advance pending removal, with penalty provisions for default.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners permitted to vacate suit premises on or before 31.12.2013, subject to payment of advance rent pending eviction; prior deadline of 2014 modified.

Sanjiv Kumar Sah @ Guddu Prasad @ Sanjiv Kumar and Ors. Vs… — Landlord and Tenant | Patna HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

¶2

Civil Revision No.22 of 2013

¶3

====================================================== 1. Sanjiv Kumar Sah @ Guddu Prasad @ Sanjiv Kumar 2. Sunil Kumar @Shani Sah, both sons of Late Kanchan Prasad. 3. Lalawati Devi, widow of Late Kanchan Prasad, all are resident of village Bhikhana Pahari, back of Salimar Hotel, P.S. Pirbahore, P.O. Bankipur, District-Patna .... .... Petitioner/s

¶4

Versus

¶5

1. Smt. Urmila Singh, wife of Sri Shree Krishna Singh 2. Smt. Prabha Singh, wife of Sri Kaushal Kishore Singh, both are resident of Mohalla-Bhikhana Pahari, P.s. Kadam Kuan P.O. Bankipur, District-Patna

¶6

Sanjeeta Devi, wife of Hari Chandra Gupta, village-Tamkuhi road, P.S. Sewarahi, District Kushi Nagar (U.P.)

¶7

Rinki Devi, wife of Kishore Bhagat, village Barakar, P.S. Kulti, District Vardhman

¶8

Poonam Gupta, daughter or late Kanchan Prasad, Mohall-Bhikhana Pahari, P.S. Pirbahore, District Patna.

¶9

.... .... Opposite Parties ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Udit Narayan Singh, Adv. For the Respondent/s : Mr. Aditya Narayan Singh No.1, Adv. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JYOTI SARAN ORAL ORDER

¶10

5 19-03-2013 Heard Mr. Udit Narayan Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Aditya Narayan Singh No.1, learned counsel for the plaintiffs-opposite party 1^st Set.

¶11

This civil revision application is directed against the judgment and order dated 10.1.2013 passed by learned Munsif-III, Patna in Eviction Suit No. 42 of 2002 whereby the suit has been decreed in favour of the plaintiffs and the defendants-petitioners have been directed to handover the vacant position of the suit premises to the plaintiffs-opposite party 1^st set.

¶12

Patna High Court C.R. No.22 of 2013 (5) dt.19-03-2013

¶13

2 / 5

¶14

The suit property is a shop situated in Mohalla- Bhikhana Pahari, P.S. Kadamkuan, Town and District-Patna having an area of 99 sqft. It is not in dispute that the petitioners were inducted in the said shop which is a part of the residential house by the erstwhile owner’s way back in the year 1997. The plaintiffs have bought the property in question under a registered sale deed(s) dated 22.5.2000 and have been coming in possession thereof.

¶15

Facts of the case, in brief is that following the purchase, the plaintiff No.2 made a request to the defendants for vacating the suit premises as she intended to open a tailoring shop for sustenance because her husband was unemployed. Upon refusal by the defendants-petitioners, led to filing of the Eviction Suit No.42 of 2002 and which was decreed in favour of the plaintiffs by judgment and order dated 28.2.2005. The judgment and order passed in eviction suit was questioned by the defendants by filing a Civil revision No. 586 of 2005 and a Bench of this Court after considering the rival contentions and upon perusal of the materials, was pleased to allow the civil revision application. The matter was remitted to the trial Court for passing an order afresh, taking into consideration the pendente lite developments. The matter upon remand was taken up for consideration and the trial Court after hearing the counsels appearing for the parties and upon

¶16

Patna High Court C.R. No.22 of 2013 (5) dt.19-03-2013

¶17

3 / 5

¶18

appreciation of materials on record, has been pleased to decree the suit again in favour of the plaintiffs and hence this civil revision application.

¶19

An affidavit has been filed today in which the defendantspetitioners while admitting that they have been running their business in the suit premises since 1997, have stated that their displacement all of a sudden would effect their source of livelihood and thus their hardship also requires a consideration. The defendants-petitioners however while submitting as such have further submitted that they would not be contesting the impugned judgment and order on merits and undertake to vacate the suit premises latest by 28.2.2014. The offer made by the defendantspetitioners of vacating the suit premises by 28.2.2014 without contesting, was brought to the notice of the plaintiffs-opposite party 1^st set and who have not objected to the offer save and except that according to them the period is too long and requires to be balanced.

¶20

This Court thus taking into consideration the circumstances that the parties prima facie do not wish to contest the matter rather are agreeable for disposal of this civil revision application in the light of the undertaking given by the defendant-petitioners in the supplementary affidavit filed today with appropriate modification,

¶21

Patna High Court C.R. No.22 of 2013 (5) dt.19-03-2013

¶22

4 / 5

¶23

does not feel the necessity to delve into the merits of the litigations. This Court however while considering the undertaking given by the defendants-petitioners would balance equities by noticing the submission of the plaintiffs-opposite party 1^st set in so far as the period is concerned.

¶24

Having considered the submissions of the parties and taking into consideration the undertaking given by the defendantpetitioners as also taking note of the fact that the defendantpetitioners are in the tenancy since 1997 and that the plaintiffs required the premise which is a part of their residential house for their personal necessity, this Court is of the opinion that equities would be balanced by permitting the petitioners to vacate the suit premises on/or before 31.12.2013.

¶25

It goes without saying that until the defendants- petitioners vacate the suit premises i.e. on/or before 31.12.2013 they shall be under a legal obligation to pay the rent in advance payable by the first week of each month and a default in two consecutive months in payment of rent would entitle the plaintiffs-opposite parties to seek modification of this order.

¶26

In case, the defendants-petitioners violates his undertaking of vacating the suit premises within the period as it stands modified by this order i.e. 31.12.2013, the plaintiffs-opposite

¶27

Patna High Court C.R. No.22 of 2013 (5) dt.19-03-2013

¶28

5 / 5

¶29

party-1^st set shall be at liberty to take recourse to the remedies as available to him under law. In addition thereto as a consequence of violation of the undertaking given by the defendant-petitioners before this Court, the order passed in the civil revision application today shall stand recalled and this civil revision application shall stand dismissed.

¶30

As the order has been passed with consent of the parties there shall be no order as to costs. In case, the defendantpetitioners find difficulty in payment of the rent or there is any resistance by the plaintiffs-opposite parties in accepting the same, the same can be deposited in the Court below together with an affidavit explaining the circumstances for its deposit.

¶31

This application is disposed of accordingly.

¶32

(Jyoti Saran, J)

¶33

Bibhash/-

Sanjiv Kumar Sah @ Guddu Prasad @ Sanjiv Kumar and Ors. v. Smt. Urmila Singh and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sanjiv Kumar Sah @ Guddu Prasad @ Sanjiv Kumar and Ors. v. Smt. Urmila Singh and Ors.

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

Bahadur Sah Vs Kameshwar Chaudhary and Ors.

Deocharan Ram @ Deosharan Ram Vs Manikchand Seth @ Manikchand

M/S Janta Hardware Stores Thru Vs Smt.Savitri Devi and Anr.

Krishna Kumar Dubey Vs Babban Dubey and Ors.

Yamuna Prasad @ Yamuna Prasad Vs Sri Ramdhan Pandey

Smt.Geeta Devi Vs Gurucharan Das and Ors.