Allahabad High Court
Smt. Ritu Naseer And 4 Others vs Vii Additional District Judge Court No. ... on 28 August, 2024
Author: Ashutosh Srivastava
Bench: Ashutosh Srivastava
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:137279 Judgment reserved on: 12.03.2024 Judgment delivered on: 28.08.2024 Court No. 50 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 2739 of 2019 Petitioner :- Smt. Ritu Naseer And 4 Others Respondent :- Vii Additional District Judge Court No. 8, Allahabad And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Manish Goyal(Senior Adv.),Priyanka Midha,Ram M. Kaushik,Tarun Agrawal Counsel for Respondent :- Atul Dayal(Senior Adv.),Mohd Naushad Along with Case :- WRIT - A No. - 3362 of 2019 Petitioner :- Mahboob Ali Higher Secondary School, Allahabad Respondent :- Parvez Nasir (Dead) And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Atul Dayal(Senior Adv.),Mohd Naushad Counsel for Respondent :- Ram M. Kaushik,Tarun Agrawal Hon'ble Ashutosh Srivastava,J.
1. Both the above referred writ petitions involve identical questions of law and facts. The Writ (A) No. 2739 of 2019 is being treated as the leading writ petition and the facts pertaining to the same is being considered for deciding the controversy involved.
2. Heard Sri Tarun Agarwal along with Sri Imran Syed, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Atul Dayal, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Prakash Chand Dwivedi, learned counsel for the contesting respondents.
3. The writ petition, being Writ (A) No. 2739 of 2019, at the instance of the Landlords has been filed questioning the legality, propriety and correctness of the order dated 24.11.2018 passed by the 7th Additional District Judge, Court No. 8, Allahabad in Appeal No. 72 of 2001 as well as the order dated 19.04.2001 passed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer Ist, Prayagraj to the extent both orders fix monthly rental of the property in question as Rs. 4,000/-. A further prayer to allow the Rent Case No. 15 of 1998 filed by the petitioners under Section 21 (8) of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 in toto has been prayed for.
4. The Writ Petition No. 3362 of2019 has been filed at the instance of the tenant assailing the order dated 24.11.2018 passed in Appeal No. 65 of 2001 under Section 22 of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972, whereby and whereunder the Appeal has been rejected and the order dated 19.04.2001 of the Rent Control and Eviction Officer Ist, Prayagraj, so far as it holds the existence of Landlord and Tenant Relationship has been upheld and proceedings under Section 21(8) of the Act at the instance of the Landlords have been held to be maintainable.
5. The lis between the parties is with respect of a Building No. 68/61, Stanley Road, Allahabad. The total area of the premises is 1810 square meters over which the premises let out has been constructed. The constructed area is 455.11 square meters. The petitioners are the owners and Landlords of the premises in question. The premises in question is under the tenancy of Mahboob Ali Higher Secondary School, 68/61, Stanley Road, Allahabad/Prayagraj/Respondent No. 2, which is a recognized educational institution governed by the provisions of the Intermediate Education Act, 1921. The Respondent No. 2 is running an intermediate school from the premises in question on a monthly rent of Rs. 75/- per month.
6. A joint application was filed by late Parvez Naseer, the predecessor-in-interest of the Petitioner Nos. 1 to 3, late Masood Naseer, the predecessor-in-interest of the proforma Respondent Nos. 3 to 5, Shahid Naseer (Petitioner No. 4) and Smt. Shahwar Khan (Petitioner No. 5) before the Rent Control and Eviction Officer Ist, Prayagraj for enhancement of rent of the premises under Section 21 (8) of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 arraying the Respondent No. 2, the sitting tenant as the sole respondent. The Application filed on 04.04.1998 was registered as Case No. 15 of 1998. The enhancement of rent from Rs. 75/- per month to Rs. 28,300/- per month was sought on the strength of a report of a registered valuer, who assessed the value of the premises under the tenancy of the Respondent No. 2 to be Rs. 34.03 Lacs.
7. The proceedings registered as Case No. 15 of 1998 were resisted by the Respondent No. 2 by filing objections denying the relationship of the Landlord and Tenant with the petitioners and claimed that the premises was originally let out in the year 1943 for one year by one Smt. Mahfuz Fatima to a registered Society by the name of Public Education Society, Allahabad. The Respondent No. 2 asserted that an Agreement dated 30.6.1943 was entered into between Smt. Mahfuz Fatima and Mahboob Ali acting as the Secretary of the Public Education Society and the premises was let out for running a school i.e. New English School from the tenanted premises. The Respondent No. 2 sought to establish that the tenant of the premises was the Public Education Society, Allahabad and not the Respondent No. 2. The valuer report was stated to have been obtained by collusion.
8. The petitioners filed their documentary evidence before the Rent Control and Eviction Officer Ist, Prayagraj. A copy of the valuation report dated 12.09.1997 prepared by Sri G. S. Berdie an approved and recognized valuer along with the affidavit of Sri G. S. Berdie was filed on record. As per the report the fair market value of the tenanted premises was calculated as Rs. 34.03 Lacs. The land of 1810 square meters was valued at Rs. 27.15 Lacs @ Rs. 1500 per square meters as per prevailing circle rate and the depreciated value of building was valued at Rs. 6.88 Lacs. The rent of the premises was accordingly assessed at Rs. 28,300/- per month. The Respondent No. 2 did not file any counter report and the report submitted by the petitioners went unrebutted.
9. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer Ist, Prayagraj vide his order dated 19.04.2021 rejected the report of the valuer on the ground that it appeared to be excessive. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer Ist, Prayagraj, proceeded to record its own finding that the tenancy was very old, the building too was in a dilapidated condition and it's fair market value would not be more than Rs. 5 Lacs. The valuation of the land was totally omitted and accordingly, the monthly rent was fixed as Rs. 4,000/- w.e.f. 04.04.1998. As regards the relationship of Landlord and Tenant, the Rent Control and Eviction Officer Ist, Prayagraj, held that there existed Landlord-Tenant Relationship between the petitioners and the Respondent No. 2.
10. Aggrieved by the order dated 19.04.2001 of the Rent Control and Eviction Officer Ist, Prayagraj, both the petitioners as also the Respondent No. 2 preferred Appeals before the 7th Additional District Judge, Court No. 8, Allahabad. The petitioners preferred Appeal No. 72 of 2001 against the order dated 19.04.2001 so far as it rejected the report of valuer and fixed the rent as Rs. 4,000/- per month. The Respondent No. 2 preferred Appeal No. 65 of 2001 against the order of the Rent Control and Eviction Officer Ist, Prayagraj, holding that the relationship of Landlord and Tenant existed between the parties.
11. The 7th Additional District Judge, Court No. 8, Allahabad clubbed both the Appeals and decided the same by a common order dated 24.11.2018. Both the Appeals were dismissed. Consequently, the valuation as determined by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer Ist, Prayagraj and the finding of existence of Landlord-Tenant Relationship has been upheld.
12. Sri Atul Dayal, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Prakash Chandra Dwivedi, learned counsel for the contesting Respondent No. 2 in opposition to the writ petition submits that the premises was let out to the Society i.e. Public Education Society, which is running the School in the name of Mahboob Ali Higher Secondary School and is in possession of only the first floor of the premises and the answering respondent has no concern with either the ground floor or the land appurtenant to the premises let out. It is also stated that a Civil Suit No. 448 of 1967, was filed by Smt. Firdaus Fatima for ejectment against the Public Education Society and its Secretary namely Syed Mahboob Ali, Advocate, which Suit was dismissed on 10.02.1968. Two notices were issued on behalf of the Petitioner/Landlords on 11.10.1982 and 29.08.1988 addressed to Secretary, Public Education Society which go to show that the initial tenancy was for one year and thereafter it was month to month. The answering respondent had objected to the valuation report. Attention of the Court is invited to Para Nos. 3, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11 of the counter affidavit filed to the Application under Section 21(8) of the Act. It is submitted that the valuation report was unrealistic and the Rent Control and Eviction Officer Ist, Prayagraj, rightly assessed the value of the premise to be not more than Rs. 5 Lacs and, accordingly, fixed the rent as Rs. 4000/- per month. The Appellate Court in the Appeal illegally held that the tenancy initially was for a period of one year and thereafter it was surrendered and premises was let out to the School i.e. Respondent No. 2. It illegally held that the School was the tenant of the premises relying upon Section 116 Transfer of Property Act and Section 14 of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972. It is also argued that there were several other tenants on the ground floor and answering respondent in any case could not be saddled with the liability in respect of the entire ground floor portion which was not under its tenancy. The Landlords sold entire North side from West to East to one Mohd. Rashid, Savitri Dental Hospital, Dr. Chaddha, who subsequently transferred the same to Jay Hospital and very little area on the ground floor is left and the valuation report cannot be relied upon for determination of market value of the premises for fixing the rent under Section 21(8) of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972. In any case market value cannot be determined on the basis of circle rate which is meant only for the purpose of Stamp Duty and can reflect only a tentative value. Reliance is placed upon the decisions of this Court reported in 2005(2) ARC 828 and 2008(3) ARC 298. It is, accordingly, submitted that no interference is called for in the impugned orders in so far as the question of the valuation of the premises and fixing the rate of rent is concerned.
13. Sri Tarun Agarwal, learned counsel for the Petitioners/Landlords in rejoinder submits that the valuers report was not objected to nor any valuer report by the Tenant/Respondent No. 2 was filed controverting the valuer report submitted by the petitioners. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer Ist, Prayagraj, committed manifest illegality in discarding the valuer report and recording his own finding regarding the valuation of the premises and fixing the rent accordingly. The findings returned by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer Ist, Prayagraj about the valuation being not more than Rs. 5 Lacs is without any basis or evidence. The averment of the learned counsel for the contesting Respondent No. 2 that the Respondent No. 2 is the tenant of only the first floor of the premises and has nothing to do with the ground floor is a misnomer inasmuch as the tenanted premises comprises of the basement and the ground floor and there is no first floor in the building. The building itself is situated on the road level. Besides the plea is being taken in the writ petition for the first time and belies the objections filed by the Tenant/Respondent No. 2 before the authorities below. The Application under Section 21(8) of the Act clearly mentioned that the Respondent No. 2 has been the tenant of the main building with the appurtenant land to it @ Rs. 75/- per month besides water tax. The total area of the land is 1810 sq. mtrs., and the covered area under the tenancy of the Respondent No. 2 is 455.11 sq. mtrs., besides an area of Porch which is about 36 sq. mtrs. The premises is located in the proximity to Beli Hospital, Blood Bank and Traffic Police Lines and could have easily fetched Rs. 34 Lacs or more and had been rightly valued as such by the approved valuer. The Respondent No. 2 has till date not paid any rent even at the rate of Rs. 4000/- per month which was liable to be paid w.e.f. 04.04.1998. It is, accordingly, prayed that the impugned orders dated 19.04.2001 passed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer Ist, Prayagraj as also the order dated 24.11.2018 passed by the 7th Additional District Judge, Court No. 8, Allahabad in Appeal No. 72 of 2001 are liable to be set aside and the Application of the petitioners under Section 21(8) is liable to be allowed in toto.
14. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties and have perused the records. From the respective stands taken by the learned counsels for the parties, the following questions arise for consideration by this Court.
1. Whether there exists Landlord-Tenant Relationship between the Petitioners/Landlords (Ritu Naseer & others) and Mahboob Ali Higher Secondary School (Sitting Tenant)/Respondent No. 2.
2. Whether the Authorities below were justified in rejecting the report of the registered valuer in the absence of any contrary evidence led by the Tenant/Respondent No. 2.
15. The Court proceeds to consider the first question about the existence of the Landlord-Tenant Relationship. The fact that the premises in question is owned by the petitioners is not denied by the Respondent No. 2. The Respondent No. 2 i.e. the Sitting Tenant Mahboob Ali Higher Secondary School has denied the relationship of Landlord Tenant on the ground that the premises in question was originally let out for the first time in the year 1943 to Public Education Society which is claimed to be the parent Society of the Respondent No. 2. The Respondent No. 2 has placed reliance upon the agreement date 30.06.1943. Reliance is also placed upon the two Notices dated 11.10.1982 and 29.08.1988 issued by the predecessors in interest of the petitioners to the Society regarding the non-payment of rent. The Respondent No. 2 has also relied upon the decree dated 13.07.1967 passed in the Original Suit No. 447 of 1967 (Smt. (Firdaus Fatima vs. Syed Mahboob Ali and another). On the basis of the above, it has been asserted that the Public Education Society was the real tenant of the premises in question and as such there existed no relationship of Landlord and Tenant between the petitioners and the Respondent No. 2.
16. The writ petitioners have placed reliance on two cheques issued in 1998 by Mahboob Ali in his capacity as Manager of the Respondent No. 2. The cheques were issued towards the payment of rent. The petitioners have contended that the payment of rent by the Respondent No. 2 is sufficient to indicate the existence of Landlord Tenant Relationship. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer Ist, Prayagraj, as also the Appellate Authority in Appeal against the order of the Rent Control and Eviction Officer Ist, Prayagraj, have held that the payment of cheques by Mahboob Ali Higher Secondary School/Respondent No. 2 was conclusive proof/evidence of existence of Landlord-Tenant Relationship in the absence of any other material. Even before this Court, no attempt has been made to dispute the factum of the payment of rent through the aforementioned two cheques. In respect of the Notices dated 11.10.1982 and 29.08.1988 the authorities below held that the notices could not prevail over the conclusive evidence in the form of two cheques of 1998. Further the authorities below found that the Agreement dated 30.06.1943 executed between the predecessors in interest of the petitioners and Public Education Society was for one year only. There is no iota of evidence that the tenancy thereafter continued in favour of the Public Education Society. The authorities below have also returned a finding that the Institution was imparting education since 1935 under the name of New English School. The name of New English School was changed to Mehboob Ali Inter College in 1977. The authorities below, accordingly, concluded that the Agreement dated 30.06.1943 was not extended beyond one year, whereafter the Educational Institution running in the name of New English School (old) continued to run from the premises. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer Ist, Prayagraj, in its order dated 19.04.2001 has noticed that Sri Ahmad Ali the then Manger of the Respondent No. 2 verily admitted on 27.07.2000 that he had no information about the Public Education Society. The bye-laws of the Society were not filed nor list of existing members disclosed. The Respondent No. 2 failed to establish whether the registration of the Society was renewed or not. The Respondent No. 2 further failed to lead any evidence towards renewal of the registration of the Society or payment of rent by the Society. Besides the above, the Court takes note of the fact that the name of the Society and the Educational Institution has been used rather interchangeably. In the Decree dated 13.07.1967 passed in the Original Suit No. 447 of 1987 (Smt. Firdaus Fatima Vs. Syed Mahboob Ali and another) the defendant Mahboob Ali has been shown in the twin capacity of Manager of the Educational Institution and Secretary of the Society. In the opinion of the Court the Society existed only on paper and the real person behind the Society and Educational Institution was Mahboob Ali. In the counter affidavit filed to this writ petition the same has been sworn by an individual while proclaiming himself to be the respondent Educational Institution. This goes a long way to show that the respondent Institution is being managed by an individual only and the respondent Educational Institution comprises of the same set of persons that comprise the Society if at all it is in existence. In the opinion of the Court, the Respondent No. 2 cannot be permitted to contend that the Society is the real tenant and that the Respondent No. 2 has no role to discharge as tenant. The conclusion arrived at by the Authorities Below that there exists a relationship of Landlord-Tenant between the petitioners and the Respondent No. 2 and the proceedings under Section 21 (8) of the Act are very much maintainable is just and proper and calls for no interference by this Court.
17. Now coming to the second question as to whether the authorities below could have rejected the report of the registered valuer in the absence of contrary evidence presented by the tenant the Court finds that the petitioners brought on record a valuation report of a registered valuer along with an affidavit of the registered valuer. The Report has not been specifically rebutted and no contrary valuation report has been filed by the Respondent No. 2. The valuation report along with the affidavit of the registered approved valuer has been filed on record as Annexure No. 5 to the writ petition. Considering the credentials of the registered approved valuer as also the location of the premises which is situate opposite the Beli Hospital on the main Stanley Road there is no occasion to dispute the valuation report in the absence of any other contrary material. The authorities below committed manifest error of law and fact in not reading the valuers report in the correct perspective. The valuation report was not liable to be discarded. The Court further finds that there is absolutely no basis for the Rent Control and Eviction Officer Ist, Prayagraj, to determine the rent of the premises to be Rs. 4,000/- per month assuming the valuation of the premises to be only Rs. 5,00,000/-. The Court further finds that the value of the premises as assumed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer Ist, Prayagraj, did not include the value of the land. The rental value thus determined by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer Ist, Prayagraj, suffered from patent error on the face of it and was liable to be set aside in Appeal. The Appellate Authority, however, did not interfere with the above finding of the Rent Control and Eviction Officer Ist, Prayagraj, on the ground that only upper portion of the tenanted premises was in the possession of the Respondent No. 2 and as such the cost of the ground floor and land will not be included for the purpose of determining the valuation of the premises. The Court is afraid that such a conclusion arrived at by the Appellate Authority and affirming the conclusion of the Rent Control and Eviction Officer Ist, Prayagraj, is faulty and cannot be countenanced.
18. Section 3 (i) of the U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 defines 'Building' as follows:
"3(i) "building", means a residential or non-residential roofed structure and includes-
(i) any land (including any garden), garages and out- houses, appurtenant to such building;
(ii) any furniture supplied by the landlord for use in such building;
(iii) any fittings and fixtures affixed to such building for the more beneficial enjoyment thereof; "
19. Section 21(8) of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 reads as under:-
"(8) Nothing in clause (a) of sub-section (1) shall apply to a building let out to the State Government or to a local authority or to a public sector corporation or to a recognized educational institution unless the Prescribed Authority is satisfied that the landlord is a person to whom clause (ii) or clause (iv) of the Explanation to sub-section (1) is applicable:
Provided that in the case of such a building the District Magistrate may, on the application of the landlord, enhance the monthly rent payable therefor to a sum equivalent to one-twelfth of ten per cent of the market value of the building under tenancy, and the rent so enhanced shall be payable from the commencement of the month of tenancy following the date of the application:
Provided further that a similar application for further enhancement may be made after the expiration of a period of five years from the date of the last order of enhancement."
20. The question as to whether the expression 'Building' under Section 3(i) of the Act only means the superstructure constructed on the land and does not include the land underneath the building came up for consideration before the Apex Court in the case of State of U.P. Vs. VII Additional District Judge and others reported in 1992 (4) SCC 429. Their Lordships analyzing the definition of building under section 3(i) of the Act for the purposes of assessing the market value of the building for determining the rent under Section 21(8) proviso held as under:-
"After giving our anxious consideration to the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears to us that in the definition of building under Section 3(i) of the Act, there is no express exclusion of the value of the land on which the building stands. In the absence of such express exclusion, the land being intrinsically inseparable from the building standing thereon, the value of the land and the value of the structure or building should be taken into consideration and in our view the land on which the building stands together with the building or structure constitute one composite unit. It may be indicated that the value of two similar buildings or structure standing on similar parcel of land may differ substantially on account of locational advantage of the site in question. The difference of valuation of land because of such locational advantage creeps into the ultimate valuation of the building or structure making one building more valuable than the other although from the structural point of view, both the buildings are identical. In the aforesaid circumstances, the determination of valuation of the building by taking into consideration the value of the land in addition to the value of the structure , does not appear to be illegal and improper. In any case, the definition of "building" under the Act clearly shows that the building thereunder means roofed structure including the land underneath the said structure. Inclusive part of the definition only relate to the land appurtenant to such building and not to the land underneath the roofed structure."
21. Learned counsel for the contesting Respondent No. 2 has laid much emphasis on the question that market value of the premises cannot be determined on the basis of circle rate. Admittedly, the registered valuer relied upon the circle rate prevalent at that time and based his valuation accordingly. It is contended that the authorities below rightly discarded the valuation report and no fault can be found in the approach of the authorities below. In the opinion of the Court for determining the market value of the land, circle rate is not a safe criteria. Circle rates are only tentative in nature while determining the market value in land acquisition cases circle rate cannot be taken as final criteria. In cases under Section 21(8) of the Act also same principle for determining market value is to be kept in mind which is applied to land acquisition cases. The best evidence to determine the market value is sale deed of similar land in the recent past.
22. Section 21(8) of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 talks about 'Market Value of the Building'. The definition of building will include the roofed structure including the land underneath the said structure. Market value has not been defined under the Act. It has been judicially interpreted to mean the value which a willing buyer would be ready to pay to a willing seller. In the opinion of the Court, the market value of a property is generally higher than the circle rate fixed by the Collector under Rule 4 of the U.P. Stamp Valuation Rules 1997. The circle rate is the minimum value fixed and thus is significantly less than the market value and the market value would be significantly higher than the circle rate. In the case at hand the approved valuer has based his valuation on the circle rate which safely can be fixed as the minimum value of the premises. In the absence of any contrary material, the valuation assessed on the basis of the circle rate was liable to be accepted. The authorities below manifestly erred in discarding the same and doing so otherwise.
23. This Court in the case of U.P.S.E.B, Lucknow and Other Vs. Kishori Lal and Others reported in 1999(1) ARC 429 while dealing with almost a similar situation where the valuation report was based upon the circle rate and no other material was filed on the record proceeded to accept the valuation report based on circle rate.
24. In the case of Ishtiyaq Bano Begum and Others Vs. Additional District Judge and Others reported in 2008 (3) ARC 298 this Court also relied upon the circle rate to determine the market value of the premises for the purposes of fixing the rent under section 21(8) in the absence of any other material. The Court was not inclined to remand the matter back to the Rent Control and Eviction Officer Ist, Prayagraj as considerable time had elapsed and in order to give a quitas to the litigation took the market value of the premises at 75% of the circle rate. In the said case, however, both the Landlord and Tenant had filed their respective valuers reports valuing the cost of construction of the structure and value of land underneath the structure was not included. The Court proceeded to determine the value of the land at 75% of the circle rate.
25. In the case at hand, however, an uncontroverted valuer report was filed on behalf of the Landlord/Petitioners which was duly proved by the valuer by filing his affidavit in support of his report. The respondent tenant did not produce anything to the contrary. In the opinion of the Court, considering the unrebutted valuer report, the location of the premises the rental value of the property has been determined by the approved valuer at Rs. 28,300/- per month which is reasonable and this Court does not find any infirmity in it.
26. Accordingly, it is held that the authorities below manifestly erred in law in rejecting the report of the approved valuer in the absence of any contrary evidence by the Tenant/Respondent No. 2.
27. Learned counsel for the petitioners at this juncture submits that the Respondent No. 2 has not deposited a single penny towards rent at the rate fixed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer Ist, Prayagraj, under the impugned orders. If that be so, the conduct of the Respondent No. 2/Tenant is deplorable and cannot be approved.
28. As a result of the above discussion, the Writ Petition No. 2739 of 2019 filed by the Landlord/Petitioners is allowed. The order dated 24.11.2018 passed by the 7th Additional District Judge, Court No. 8, Allahabad in Appeal No. 72 of 2001 as well as the order dated 19.04.2001 passed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Ist, Prayagraj, so far as they fix the monthly rent of the premises at Rs. 4,000/- per month w.e.f. 04.04.1998 are set aside. It is directed that the Tenant/Respondent No. 2 shall be liable to pay rent @ Rs. 28,300/- per month w.e.f. 04.04.1998 and continue to pay rent at the rate of Rs. 28,300/- month to month as and when the same falls due. Since the Respondent No. 2 has admittedly defaulted in the payment of rent due from 04.04.1998 in the opinion of he Court the Petitioner/Landlords deserve to be compensated with interest on the defaulted amount. The arrears of rent payable @ Rs. 28,300/- per month w.e.f. 04.04.1998 upto the date of payment shall carry interest at the rate of 9% per annum and shall be cleared within three months of filing certified copy of the order of this Court failing which it shall be open for the Petitioners/Landlords to take recourse to law for recovery of the rent as advised. The Writ Petition No. 3362 of 2019 filed by the Tenant/ Respondent No. 2 is dismissed. However, in the circumstances the parties to bear their costs.
Order Date :- 28.08.2024 Ravi Prakash (Ashutosh Srivastava,J.)