Allahabad High Court
Amit Kumar And Ors. vs Addl. District Judge/Spl. Judge Sc/St ... on 23 May, 2025
Author: Pankaj Bhatia
Bench: Pankaj Bhatia
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH ?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:30988 Court No. - 6 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 23954 of 2018 Petitioner :- Amit Kumar And Ors. Respondent :- Addl. District Judge/Spl. Judge Sc/St Act Bahraich And Ors. Counsel for Petitioner :- Mohammad Aslam Khan Counsel for Respondent :- Sanjay Kumar Srivastava,S.K. Srivastava Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.
1. Heard Shri Mohd. Aslam Khan, learned counsel for the petitioners and Shri Sanjay Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the respondent.
2. The present writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 9.7.2018 (Annexure No.6) passed by respondent no.1 whereby the revision preferred by the respondent landlord was allowed and the order 9.11.2000 passed by the SCC Court in favour of tenant/petitioner, was set aside.
3. The facts in brief are that the petitioner is a tenant and the respondent being landlord instituted a suit for rent and ejectment against the petitioner herein, after service of notice under Section 106 of Transfer of Property Act on 18.1.1982 alleging therein that the rent was not paid since 1.6.1976 upto 1.12.1980. The allegations with regard to the creation of sub tenancy was also levelled.
4. In the defence to the said suit, the petitioner put in appearance and stated that a valid deposit was made under Section 30 of the U.P.Act No.13 of 1972. Thus, he was not having any pending arrears of rent. Service of notice was also denied and it was also denied that any sub tenancy was created. The trial court decided the issue with regard to the default as pleaded by the landlord against him mainly on the strength of deposit made by the petitioner under Section 30 of the U.P. Act No.13 of 1972. Ultimately, the suit came to be dismissed on 9.11.2000.
5. Aggrieved against the said order, the landlord preferred revision under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Causes Court Act.
6. The revisional court while recording the finding with regard to service of notice, considered the statement of the postman and recorded that the notice was properly served. With regard to the arrears of rent and default committed by the petitioner, the revisional court recorded that for a deposit made under Section 30 of the Act No.13 of 1972 to be taken as a defence, it is essential that the deposit under Section 30 should be a valid deposit. The revisional court considered the mandate of Section 30 which prescribes that if tenant tenders the rent and the same is refused, it is open for the tenant to move an appropriate application before the court for deposit. The revisional court held that the burden of proving the deposit to be a valid deposit prescribed under Section 30 had to be discharged by the tenant which he could not discharge. Thus the defence of the tenant that valid deposit was made, was rejected. The document on record reveals that the suit in question was filed in the year 1982 which came to be dismissed in the year 2000. Thereafter, the revision continued from 2000 upto 2018 and since then the present writ petition is pending.
7. Considering the findings of fact recorded by the revisional court, no interference is called for. The writ petition lacks merits.
8. At this stage, instead of pressing the matter on merits, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks time to vacate the premises in question.
9. In view of the statement given by learned counsel for the petitioner, despite there being an objection raised by the respondent, the petitioner is granted one year's time till 31.5.2026 to vacate the premises in question and to handover the premises in question to the landlord and to no one else on or before 31.5.2026.
10. The petitioner would file an undertaking to that effect within a period of three weeks from today before the Court of SCC. In case such an undertaking is filed, the eviction shall not take place till 31.5.2026. However, if the undertaking is not filed, execution proceedings shall be proceeded and concluded within a period of four months and a report shall be sent to this Court.
11. Senior Registrar of this Court is directed to communicate this order to the executing court through the District Judge, Bahraich for its compliance.
12. The petition is disposed of in terms of above.
Order Date :- 23.5.2025 Shukla