Allahabad High Court
Shaboo Ali vs State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. District & ... on 22 March, 2021
Author: Sangeeta Chandra
Bench: Sangeeta Chandra
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH ?Court No. - 6 Case :- MISC. SINGLE No. - 7971 of 2021 Petitioner :- Shaboo Ali Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. District & Session Judge & Anr. Counsel for Petitioner :- Sandeep Kumar Srivastava Hon'ble Mrs. Sangeeta Chandra,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.
At the very outset, learned counsel for the petitioner prays that he may be permitted to correct the description of opposite party no. 1 in the array of parties. The said prayer is allowed. Let necessary correction be made in the array of parties during the course of the day.
This writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 18.09.2019, a copy of which is annexure 1 to the writ petition passed by the Additional District & Session Judge, Court No. 3, Lucknow in S.C.C Suit No. 72 of 2016 Inre; Ram Chandra Vs. Shabbu Ali. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is a tenant of opposite no. 2 since the year 2004 and runs a cycle repair store in the tenanted premises. The opposite party no. 2 used to live out of station. The wife of opposite party no. 4 used to take rent from the petitioner but never gave any receipt of that. The petitioner deposited rent till the month of April, 2011. When the opposite party no. 2 came back home after retirement, the wife of opposite party no. 2 disowned any responsibility/liability regarding taking of rent from the petitioner. The petition had filed Misc. Case No. 36 of 2011 before the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Hawali, Lucknow for depositing the rent where he continuously depositing the rent till December, 2019. In between, the opposite party no. 2 filed a Small Causes Court Suit No. 72 of 2016 Inre; Ramchandra Vs. Shabbu Ali before the District Judge, Lucknow for recovery of rent w.e.f 2013 to 2016 and for eviction. The petitioner filed written statement on 04.07.2017. On 25.09.2017, the opposite party no. 2 filed an application under Order 15 Rule 5 CPC to which the petitioner filed his objections mentioning that after dispute arose between the opposite party no. 2 and his wife, he was depositing rent continuously in Misc. Case No. 36 of 2011. His objections were accepted and the application under Order 15 Rule 5 CPC was rejected on 27.08.2018.
The landlord approached this Court by filing Writ Petition No. 36486 (MS) of 2018 Inre; Ram Chandra Vs. Shaboo Ali and anr, which was allowed by this Court vide order dated 26.07.2019 by making an observation that the Trial Court should record a finding as to whether the rent was deposited prior to initiation of the proceedings of the S.C.C Suit or on the date of commencement of the proceeding in the same Court, or in a separate proceeding initiated by the tenant for depositing of rent. The learned Additional District and Session Judge thereafter passed the order impugned allowing the application under Order 15 Rule 5 CPC striking off the defence of the petitioner and fixing the matter for arguments.
This Court has perused the order impugned it finds that the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge has placed reliance upon the judgment of Om Prakash Gupta Vs. District Judge, Mainpuri and ors reported in 2019 ACJ Pg 1008 and Mor Singh Vs. Chandrika Prasad reported in 2015 (2) ARC 850 to observe that as soon as the suit for eviction is filed before the Small Causes Court and the tenant has noticed of such suit, he should deposit the rent along with interest and expenses etc, If he wished to get benefit of order under Order 15 Rule 5 CPC. In this case it was admitted by the petitioner that he continued to deposit rent in Misc. Case No. 36 of 2011 even after filing of S.C.C Suit No. 72 of 2016. Thus, he could not be given benefit of the beneficial provisions of the Code which protected a tenant from eviction in case on the first date of hearing i.e on the first date of filing written statement he deposited the admitted rent along with interest and expenses in the Court where the S.C.C suit for eviction had been filed.
This Court, therefore, does not find any good ground to show interference in the order impugned, the writ petition is dismissed.
Order Date :- 22.3.2021 Pachhere/-