Allahabad High Court
Sanjeev Kumar Sibbal vs Pramod Kumar Tiwari on 19 February, 2025
Author: Pankaj Bhatia
Bench: Pankaj Bhatia
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH ?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:10899 Court No. - 7 Case :- S.C.C. REVISION No. - 24 of 2024 Revisionist :- Sanjeev Kumar Sibbal Opposite Party :- Pramod Kumar Tiwari Counsel for Revisionist :- Anurag Narian Srivastava, Sachin Yadav, Vivek Kumar Rai Counsel for Opposite Party :- Vijay Kumar Dubey Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.
1. Heard the counsel for the revisionist and the counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent.
2. The present revision has been filed challenging the judgment dated 15.10.2024 passed by the Special Judge, PC Act, Lucknow in SCC Suit No.42 of 2019 whereby an order of eviction was passed along with arrears of rent and damages assessed @10% per year after every eleven months as was agreed in between the parties.
3. The facts, in brief, are that the revisionist had taken a shop on rent from the opposite party in terms of the agreement executed in between the parties for the period 01.04.2018 to 28.02.2019. The shop was given on rent at a monthly tenancy of Rs.50,000/- (fifty thousand). There was also stipulation that after every eleven months, the tenancy can be extended on execution of a fresh document and on enhancement of 10% of the rent, as fixed in between the parties. After expiry of the term, the revisionist did not vacate the shop, as such, a notice was served under section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act and the tenancy was determined. Thereafter a Suit was filed before the JSCC Court being SCC Suit No.42 of 2019, which came to be decreed.
4. The judgment in question proceeded after framing four points of determination. While dealing with the first two points, it was held that the relationship of landlord and tenant was established, and the notice was duly served. With regard to point of determination no.3, the JSCC court considered the stand taken by the revisionist that he had paid Rs.1,80,000/- as a security. The court disbelieved the same as no evidence was given to establish that the said amount was paid as a security to the plaintiff. The JSCC Court also rejected the claim of the landlord for damages @Rs.2,00,000/- (Two lacs), however, the JSCC Court awarded the damages by enhancing the rent @10% every eleven months, as was agreed in between the parties.
5. The contention of the counsel for the revisionist is that the amount of Rs.1,80,000/- as claimed by the revisionist was wrongly rejected by the JSCC Court. The said contention merits rejection for the sole reason that no evidence was led by the revisionist to establish the payment of Rs.1,80,000/- as claimed was paid to the plaintiff. Even before this court, no evidence to that count has been led.
6. The second contention of the counsel for the revisionist with regard to damages @10% of the rent enhanced after every eleven months is arbitrary, the same also merits rejection inasmuch as the damages have been awarded in terms of the agreement executed in between the parties, the said cannot be termed as excessive or arbitrary.
7. The third contention of the counsel for the revisionist is that in terms of the provisions contained in Section 46 of the U.P. Regulation of Urban Premises Tenancy Act, 2021, the order is without jurisdiction; the same further merits rejection inasmuch as the said Act was enacted in the year 2021. By the said Act, the provisions of Act no.13 of 1972 and the Ordnance No.3 of Act No.2021 were repealed, the proceedings under the said two Acts pending on the date of enactment were saved. In terms of Clause 46(3) of the Act, all the proceedings before the Civil Court in relation to any dispute between the landlord and the tenant were also saved.
8. I do not see any reason to uphold the arguments as raised by the revisionist on that count as the Suit was filed before the JSCC Court much prior to the enactment of the U.P. Regulation of Urban Premises Tenancy Act, 2021, as such, on all the three counts, the revision cannot be accepted.
9. The revision is dismissed.
10. The argument of the revisionist that the amount of Rs.1,80,000/- was given to the son of the tenant when the tenancy had commenced in the year 2013 could not be the foundation for the defence by the revisionist.
11. At this stage, the counsel for the revisionist prays that he may be granted some time to vacate the premises as he is running the shop since long to which the counsel for respondent opposes the said request and states that some reasonable time may be granted.
12. In view of the said, the revisionist is granted time till 31.07.2025 to vacate the premises subject to the revisionist filing an undertaking before the JSCC Court that he shall handover the vacant and physical possession of the shop in question to the landlord and to no one else on or before 31.07.2025. The entire decreetal amount shall also be paid by the revisionist within a period of two months from today
13. In the event of default in filing the undertaking or depositing of the decretal amount, as directed above, the opposite party would be at liberty to execute the decree in accordance with law.
Order Date :- 19.2.2025 VNP/-