Allahabad High Court
Smt.Malti Devi And 4 Others vs Ashwani Kumar Verma And Another on 3 January, 2022
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 4 Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 7659 of 2021 Petitioner :- Smt.Malti Devi And 4 Others Respondent :- Ashwani Kumar Verma And Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Ayush Khanna,Sr. Advocate Counsel for Respondent :- Prateek Rai Hon'ble J.J. Munir,J.
Heard Mr. Atul Dayal, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Ayush Khanna, learned Counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Prateek Rai, learned Counsel for the respondents through video conferencing.
The defendant-petitioners are tenants in premises bearing no. 257/127, Mohtshimganj, Allahabad situate on the ground floor of the house and comprising two rooms, besides other amenities. S.C.C. Suit No. 77 of 2014 was instituted seeking eviction of the tenants after determination of their tenancy under Section 106 of Transfer of Property Act. The landlord's case was that U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972 does not apply and the tenancy being determined by notice, the tenants, who have to be vacate the premises, were liable to be evicted. The landlord also sought a decree for recovery of arrears of rent besides damages for use and occupation. The suit was decreed by the Trial Court holding that U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972 does not apply and a valid notice to quit has been served. The tenants' revision from the said decree, passed by the Trial Court on 22.02.2017, has been dismissed on 15.11.2021.
It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the finding about service of notice to quit is absolutely perverse and there is no evidence to infer that the notice was actually served.
This Court finds that two courts below on the basis of relevant evidence have found the notice to be adequately served. It is, therefore, not open to this Court to disturb that finding under Article 227 of the Constitution, being a finding that is one purely of fact. That apart, the tenancy being not protected under U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972, a fact that is not in issue between parties, the notice to quit works effectively to determine the tenancy. In the circumstances, no case for interference with the impugned judgement and decree is made out.
At this stage, Mr. Atul Dayal, learned Senior Advocate comes up with a prayer that the tenants may be granted some reasonable time to vacate the demised premises.
Considering the entire facts and circumstances, it is directed that the tenants shall not be evicted from the demised premise for a period of one year subject to the following condition:
1. The tenants shall pay all arrears of rent and regularly pay rent @ Rs. 2500/- per month by depositing the same before the Trial Court on or before 25th day of each succeeding month. The first deposit of rent together with outstanding arrears shall be made on or before 25.01.2022. All rent deposited by the tenants shall be remitted to the landlords without asking them to furnish any security.
2. The tenants shall not sublet the accommodation in dispute on any pretext whatsoever and shall not disfigure the same.
3. The tenant-petitioners shall handover peaceful and vacant possession of the demised premises to the landlord on or before 02.01.2023.
In the event of default of any of the aforesaid conditions, this terminal protection shall stand automatically withdrawn and the decree shall become executable.
This petition stands disposed of in terms of the aforesaid orders. No costs.
Order Date :- 3.1.2022 Deepak