Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

Allahabad High Court

Rajiv Chaturvedi vs Additional District Judge Court No.8 ... on 2 May, 2025

Author: Pankaj Bhatia

Bench: Pankaj Bhatia





HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:25513
 
Court No. - 6
 

 
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 1000139 of 2013
 

 
Petitioner :- Rajiv Chaturvedi
 
Respondent :- Additional District Judge Court No.8 Lucknow And Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Lalit Kishore Pandey,Ziauddin Khan
 
Counsel for Respondent :- Anurag Kumar,Kritika Thakur,Vishwa Nath Singh
 

 
Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.
 

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.

2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging an order dated 22.08.2013 whereby the revision was allowed.

3. The facts in brief are that the opposite party being the landlord had instituted a JSCC Suit No. 13 of 1989 in which ultimately final order was passed on 21.10.1997, whereby the suit was dismissed. Challenging the said order, a revision was preferred, the revisional court considered and framed the points of determination. While deciding the issue no. 3, wherein the plea was taken by the petitioner that he had paid an amount of Rs.8000/- as advance towards the rent. A finding of fact was recorded that the said amount was security amount and could not be considered towards the deposit of rent. After recording the same, the said finding with regard to default was recorded in favour of the landlord and the revision was allowed and the suit was decreed.

3. Challenging the said order, the counsel for the petitioner argues that the petitioner is paying enhanced rent in pursuance to the interim order passed by this Court. He further argues that the amount of Rs.8000/- was an advance rent.

4. Considering the fact that the findings of fact has been recorded, no interference is called for under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, as such, the writ petition is dismissed. The amount of rent deposited in pursuance to the interim order shall be transmitted to the JSCC Court for being paid to the landlord on his moving an appropriate application.

5. The counsel for the petitioner states that he may be permitted sometime to vacate the premises.

6. In view of the said statement, the petitioner is granted time upto 31.12.2025 to vacate the premises subject to his executing an undertaking in the form of an affidavit before the JSCC Court to vacate the premises on or before 31.12.2025 and to handover the vacant and physical possession of the premises in question to the landlord and no one else. In the absence of filing of an undertaking as recorded above, the decree shall be executed forthwith by the JSCC Court within a period of three months and a report shall be sent to this Court through the Senior Registrar.

7. The present petition is disposed of in terms of the above.

8. Let a copy of this order be sent to the JSCC Court for its compliance.

Order Date :- 2.5.2025 Arun