Disposed

Jafar Ali v. Mahesh Chandra Agarwal

Uttarakhand HC23 Oct 2024WPMS/2905/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Court allowed the tenancy eviction petition filed by lenders against deed holders under WPMS No.2905 of 2024, dismissing the writ petition for interference with the civil decree. The Court imposed conditions requiring deposit of rent charges and an ultimatum for vacating by 2025.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners ordered to vacate premises on or before 31.10.2025 in consideration of undertaking and payment of ₹2,500/month use & occupation charges.

Jafar Ali Vs Mahesh Chandra Agarwal — Landlord and Tenant | Uttarakhand HC (2024)

¶1

2024:UHC:7928

¶2

SL. No.	Dat e	Office Not es, r epor t s, or der s or pr oceedin gs or dir ect ion s an d Regist r ar ’s or der w it h Sign at u r es	COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS WPMS No.2905 of 2024 Hon’ble Man oj Ku m ar Tiw ar i, A.C.J. Mr. Lokendra Dobhal, Advocate for the petitioners. 2. This is tenants’ petition challenging the judgment & order dated 23.08.2024 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Kotdwar in S.C.C. Revision No.1 of 2024. By the said judgment, eviction decree passed by Small Causes Court in S.C.C. Suit No.2 of 2019 was affirmed and the Revision filed by petitioners under Section 25 of Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887, was dismissed. Thus, feeling aggrieved, petitioners have approached this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution. 3. The judgment rendered by learned trial Court is on record as Annexure No.7 to the writ petition. Perusal of the same reveals that a suit for recovery of rent & eviction was filed by respondents against the petitioners with the contention that petitioners were inducted as tenant in the ground floor of the building in question, however, they have not paid rent since January, 1978. Learned trial Court framed following five issues, based on the pleadings made by the parties: (i) Whether there is relationship of landlord and tenant between plaintiffs and the defendants? (ii) Whether the defendants are tenants on monthly rent of ₹250/-? (iii) Whether the tenancy of the tenants was terminated vide notice dated 01.06.2012?

¶3

2024:UHC:7928

¶4

(iv) Whether the defendants are entitled
to protection of U.P. Act No.13 of 1972, particularly, Section 20(4) thereof? (v) Whether plaintiffs are entitled to the relief claimed in the suit?
4. All the five issues were decided in favour of the plaintiffs and against the petitioners. Learned trial Court accordingly decreed the suit filed by landlord and directed the petitioners to vacate the premises in question, within one month. Learned Revisional Court
affirmed the judgment rendered by learned trial Court vide judgment dated 23.08.2024.
5. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the record. Both the learned Courts below have recorded concurrent findings of fact; those findings are based on evidence on
record, thus, they cannot be termed as
perverse. Law is well settled that while
exercising supervisory power under
Article 227 of Constitution, this Court cannot interfere with the findings of fact.
6. Even otherwise also, there is no
legal infirmity in the impugned
judgments, which may warrant
interference by this Court. Thus, this
Court does not find any reason to
interfere in the matter.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioners then submitted that petitioners be given reasonable time to vacate the premises
in question. He submits that petitioners
hv nt bn bl t find n
ae o ee ae o ay
alternative accommodation to shift their
family, therefore, eighteen months’ time
be given to petitioners for vacating the premises in question.

¶5

2024:UHC:7928

¶6

8. Having regard to the facts of the
case, the writ petition is disposed of by providing that petitioners shall give an undertaking in the form of an affidavit before the trial Court that they will
vacate the premises in question on or before 31.10.2025. Petitioners shall be liable to pay ₹2,500/- per month as use & occupation charges, w.e.f. 01.11.2024 till they vacate the premises in question. Petitioners shall deposit the entire decretal amount before the trial Court on or before 30.11.2024. In case of violation of any of the aforesaid
conditions, petitioners shall not be entitled to continue in the premises in question up to 30.11.2024 and they shall be liable for eviction.
9. Let a certified copy of this order be issued, within 24 hours.
( Man oj Ku m ar Tiw ar i, A.C.J.) 23.10.2024 Arpan
ARPAN JAISWAL Digitally signed by ARPAN JAISWAL DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=eabb68a3895e41937c266c23964c048 5365445e3a20dddb7393398f9fe45ba3e, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=060FC17022BEAE3DE215D68D9 D454C5109CB987446351E4DF04AADAA2C2CE A66, cn=ARPAN JAISWAL Date: 2024.10.24 18:30:12 +05'30'

Jafar Ali v. Mahesh Chandra Agarwal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jafar Ali v. Mahesh Chandra Agarwal

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

Sri Pramod Kumar Vs M/S Bimal Industries Situated at Dhalwala

Kuldeep Singh Vs Bhagat Singh

Kuldeep Singh Vs Savitri Rawat

Amrit Corp Limited Vs Amit

Amrit Corp Limited Vs Amit

Smt Pushpa Devi Vs Shri Bhim Singh