Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Integrated with over 4 crore judgments and laws — designed for legal practitioners, researchers, students and institutions

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 3, Cited by 0]

Allahabad High Court

State Of U.P.Thr.The Secretary Prison ... vs Addl. District Judge Ix Lucknow And ... on 22 May, 2025

Author: Pankaj Bhatia

Bench: Pankaj Bhatia





HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:30717
 
Court No. - 6
 
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 1000025 of 2003
 
Petitioner :- State Of U.P.Thr.The Secretary Prison Department Lucknow
 
Respondent :- Addl. District Judge Ix Lucknow And Others 5
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- C.S.C.,R.S. Tripathi,Y.C. Srivastava
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C,Jaideep Narain Mathur,P.N. Mathur,U.A.Khan
 

 
Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the State.

2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioners challenging the judgement and order dated 12.8.1998 whereby, the JSCC had decreed the suit for arrearsof rentand ejectment against the petitioners as well as the order dated 4.9.2002 passed by the revisional court whereby, the revision was dismissed.

3. The brief facts giving rise to the present petitioners are that the opposite party nos. 3 to 6 filed S.C.C. Suit No. 102 of 1994 before the JSCC alleging that the petitioner was the tenant of the shop No. 49, Aminabad, Lucknow since the time before the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 came into operation at a monthly rent of Rs. 156.25/-. However, after the enactment of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 w.e.f. 15.7.1972, the opposite party nos. 3 to 6, in terms of Section 5 of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 enhanced the monthly rent to the amount of Rs 195.31/-. As the enhanced rent was not being paid, a notice was served and thereafter, the opposite party nos. 3 to 6 filed the suit for arrears of rent and ejectment alleging that the petitioners did not pay the arrears of rent amounting to Rs. 24,901.70/- till the time of institution of the suit. It was also stated that the petitioners did not pay the water tax w.e.f. 15.7.1972 up to 31.12.1985 amounting to Rs. 2522.63/- and for the period from 1.1.1986 up to 30.8.1993 amounting to Rs. 2,854.57/-. The petitioners filed the written statement alleging that the rent of the shop continued to be Rs. 156.25/- and the respondents themselves had demanded the said amount in the bill dated 1.12.1982.

4. It is stated that as the respondent nos. 3 to 6 did not accept the rent, the same was deposited by the petitioners in the court of Munsif in Civil Misc. Case No. 198 of 1988 calculating at the rate of Rs. 156.25/-. It was stated that the water tax has also been deposited in the office of the Jal Sansthan. It was further denied that the demand of enhanced rent was not in accordance with law. The JSCC framed as many as five points of determination. The first being whether the enhanced rent could be demanded. The JSCC after analyzing the evidence held that the petitioners were liable to pay the enhanced rent at the rate of Rs. 195.31/- w.e.f. 15.7.1972, the date when the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 came into effect. The court also held that the notice was duly served and ultimately, the suit was decreed for ejectment and for recovery of rent amounting to Rs. 7031.16. Being aggrieved with the said judgement, the SCC Revision No. 158 of 1998 was preferred before the District Judge on various grounds, however, the said revision came to be dismissed vide order dated 4.9.2002. The said orders are under challenge.

5. Learned Standing Counsel extensively argues that no notice, as was required for claiming enhanced rent, was served. The trial court while dealing with the said argument held that a notice was addressed to the Inspector General of Police, U.P., Lucknow and was duly served upon the Manager of U.P. Government Jail Depot, Aminabad, the shop in question.

6. As such, the contention of the counsel for the petitioners that the enhancement could not be demanded, was rejected. In this regard, it is essential to notice the mandate of Section 5 of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972,which is as under:

"5. Rent payable in case of old buildings.?In the case of a tenancy continuing from before the commencement of this Act, in respect of a building to which the old Act was applicable, the landlord may, by notice in writing, given within three months from the commencement of this Act, enhance the rent payable therefor to an amount not exceeding the standard rent, and the rent so enhanced shall be payable from the commencement of this Act."

7. In the light of the said statutory provision and the finding that a notice in writing was served, the submission of the counsel for the petitioners cannot be accepted and is, accordingly, rejected. It also appears from the record that as the enhanced rent was not deposited, the defence of the petitioners was also struck off. While doing so, the court had observed that even after the suit was filed, the petitioners continued to deposit the unenhanced rent in the proceedings under Section 30 of the Act before the Munsif, whereas, the requirement was to deposit the same before the JSCC, which was not done and in any case, the enhanced rent was not deposited. As such, the order striking off the defence was justified.

8.The counsel for the petitioners places reliance upon the judgement of this Court in the case of Shashi Bhushan vs. Manohar Lal Singhal, decided on 13.08.2019 in S.C.C. Revision No. 581 of 2014 to argue that the provisions of Order XV Rule 5 are not mandatory and the valuable right of the tenants is taken away, when the defence is struck off. The said submission also merits rejections as admittedly, the petitioners did not deposit the enhanced rent which was required to be deposited in view of Section 5 of the U.P. Act of 1972. Having failed to do so and there being no deposit in the JSCC court, the defence was rightly struck off. As such, the said finding also does not require any interference.

9. In view of the findings of fact recorded by both the courts and there being no material highlighted to warrant any interference with the said findings of the fact, no good grounds are made out for allowing the petition. The impugned orders are affirmed.

10. The executing court is directed toexecute the decreewithin a period of four months from today and send a report to this Court. However, in case, the petitioners are desirous of seeking any time to vacate the premises,they would be at liberty to move an application before this Court within a period of six weeks from today.

11. The present petition stands disposed of in above terms.

12.Senior Registrar is directed to send thelower court record to the executing court through the District Judge, Lucknow for compliance of the directions of this Court.

Order Date :- 22.5.2025 Shravan