Allahabad High Court
Veena Gupta vs Aruna Singh on 8 July, 2025
Author: Pankaj Bhatia
Bench: Pankaj Bhatia
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:38733 Court No. - 7 Case :- S.C.C. REVISION No. - 15 of 2024 Revisionist :- Veena Gupta Opposite Party :- Aruna Singh Counsel for Revisionist :- Ratnesh Chandra,Vaibhav Krishna Counsel for Opposite Party :- Avinash Chandra Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.
1. Heard Sri Ratnesh Chandra, learned counsel for the revisionist and Sri Avinash Chandra, learned counsel for the opposite party and perused the record.
2. The present revision has been filed by the revisionist challenging the judgment and order dated 07.08.2024 passed by JSCC court.
3. The facts in brief are that the respondent-landlady had instituted a suit for rent and ejectment in respect of the property let out to the revisionist being Shop No. K-1, K-2 and K-3, given on rent, it was alleged that despite service of notice, the revisionist has neither vacated the premises nor has paid the arrears of rent. The revisionist had put in appearance and had defended the suit.
4. Based upon the pleadings as many as four issues of determination were made by the JSCC court. With regard to the first issue whether the relationship of the land-lord and tenant existed or not? The JSCC Court recorded that in view of admission of the defendant, the relationship of the land-lord and tenant existed. As regards the issue No.2 with regard to service of notice, once again it was recorded that the defendant in her written statement had admitted the service of the notice and had also given a reply to the said notice, thus it was found that the notice was duly served. With regard to issue No.3, pertaining to arrears of rent, the JSCC court recorded, the own admission of the revisionist in her written statement that an amount of Rs. 3,48,000/- was due and payable out of which only Rs. 51,188/- was deposited in the court and the balance amount of Rs.2,96,812/- had not been paid. Based upon the said admission, the issue no.3 was also decided in favour of the land-lady.
5. Considering the finding of fact recorded by the JSCC court and there being no material to demonstrate that as to how the said findings are perverse, no interference is called for.
6. The revision lacks merit and is dismissed.
7. Considering the fact that the revisionist is in occupation of the premises since 2005, six months time is granted to the revisionist to vacate the premises up to 31.12.2025 subject to, the revisionist filing an affidavit in the form of undertaking within a period of 15 days from today before the JSCC court to vacate and handover the physical possession of the shops in question to the land-lady and to no one else on or before 31.12.2025 and subject to depositing the decretal amount of rent within a period of six weeks from today. Rent up to 31.12.2025 shall also be deposited within a period of three months from today.
Order Date :- 8.7.2025 Arvind (Pankaj Bhatia,J.)