Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Vinod Kumar Dixit vs Manju Lata Awasthi . on 19 January, 2022
Bench: Ajay Rastogi, Abhay S. Oka
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 9826 OF 2013
VINOD KUMAR DIXIT .….APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
MANJU LATA AWASTHI & ANR. ….RESPONDENT(S)
ORDER
The appellant(tenant) has assailed the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court dated 17 th September, 2010. The dispute relates to the accommodation of premises no. 108/109, Gandhi Nagar, Kanpur.
The proceedings for eviction were initiated by the respondents pursuant to a notice dated 10th October, 1990 under the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972(hereinafter being referred to as the “Act 1972”). During the Signature Not Verified pendency of the proceedings, the original tenant Raghunath Prasad Digitally signed by Anita Malhotra Date: 2022.01.21 15:56:12 IST Reason: Dixit died on 17th November, 1992 and one of his son Ashok Kumar 1 Dixit, who is an employee of Punjab National Bank, after taking loan constructed the house on plot no. 130, Block P, Yashoda Nagar and shifted there long back.
The present appellant, who is a lawyer by profession and practicing in District Kanpur, as alleged, is residing in the rented premises. However, this fact has been disputed by learned counsel for the respondents.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that under explanation (b) subSection 3 of Section 12 of the Act 1972, if one of the dependent of a tenant is residing in the rented premises and the other dependent has constructed his house, and even if he has shifted to a new accommodation, still the right of the dependent tenant is duly protected and placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in Harish Tandon Vs. Addl. District Magistrate, Allahabad, U.P. and Others 1995(1) SCC 537 and submits that, in the given circumstances, the finding which has been recorded by the High Court in the impugned judgment is not sustainable in law and deserves to the interfered with by this Court.
Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, while supporting the finding recorded in the impugned judgment submits that almost more than 30 years have been rolled by now and the 2 respondent no. 1 is a lady and a senior citizen and is unable to get possession of her property and running from pillar to post and further submits that no error has been committed by the High Court which calls for interference.
We have heard learned counsel for the parties and taken into consideration the material placed on record and the fact that the original tenant died way back on 17th November, 1992 and one of his son Ashok Kumar has constructed his house and shifted there long back and the present appellant, who is alleged to be residing in the rented premises, although has been disputed by the respondents, but in the facts and circumstances, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned judgment passed by the High Court.
The appellant is directed to hand over vacant and peaceful possession of the demised property in question free from all encumbrances to the respondent(s)/landlord(s) on or before 30 th June, 2023 on furnishing usual undertaking within four weeks in the Registry of this Court.
In the meanwhile, the appellant shall pay mesne profit/compensation @ Rs. 2,000/ per month from February, 2022 onwards to the respondent(s) until he handover the possession of the demised property and two consecutive defaults would permit the 3 respondent(s) to take possession of the demised property by due process of law.
We further make it clear that if the appellant fails to handover the vacant and peaceful possession of the demised premises by 30 th June 2023, the respondent(s) will be at liberty to file miscellaneous application before this Court for taking appropriate action regarding noncompliance of the order of this Court.
The appeal in the above terms stands disposed of. All pending applications stand disposed of.
……………………..J. (AJAY RASTOGI) ……….……………J. (ABHAY S. OKA) NEW DELHI 19TH JANUARY, 2022.
4
ITEM NO.104 Court 13 (Video Conferencing) SECTION III-A
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Civil Appeal No(s). 9826/2013
VINOD KUMAR DIXIT Appellant(s)
VERSUS
MANJU LATA AWASTHI & ANR. Respondent(s)
(IA No. 91944/2017 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T. IA No. 91943/2017 - PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ANNEXURES) Date : 19-01-2022 This matter was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY RASTOGI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ABHAY S. OKA For Appellant(s) Mr. Anurag Dubey, Adv.
Mr. Pramod Kumar, Adv.
Mr. R. Bhaskar, Adv.
Mr. S. R. Setia, AOR For Respondent(s) Mr. Vibhav Mishra, Advocate Mr. Ekansh Bansal, Advocate Ms. Juhi Mishra, Advocate Mr. Divyendu Tripathi, Advocate Mr. Abhay Upadhyaya, Advocate Mr. Parmanand Gaur, AOR Ms. Abha Jain, AOR UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R The appeal is disposed of in terms of the Signed Order. All pending applications stand disposed of.
(SONIA BHASIN) (BEENA JOLLY)
COURT MASTER (SH) COURT MASTER (NSH)
(Signed Order is placed on the file)
5