Hanuman Prasad Vs. The IIIrd Addl. District Judge & Ors.
EmailAppeal: Civil Appeal No. 2958 of 1991
Petitioner: Hanuman Prasad
Respondent: The IIIrd Addl. District Judge & Ors.
Apeal: Civil Appeal No. 2958 of 1991
Judges: SYED SHAH MOHAMMED QUADRI & Y.K. SABHARWAL, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Jul 25, 2000
Head Note:
RENT CONTROL & EVICTION
Constitution
Article 136 – Eviction on grounds on non-payment of rent – Plea that rate was Rs. 51/- instead of Rs. 65/- – Said plea not accepted by Courts below or High Court in two rounds. Held that there is no ground to interfere. Appeal dismissed.
(Para 3)
JUDGEMENT:
ORDER
1. This appeal by special leave is from the judgment of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in W.P. 4854/87n dated February 25, 1991.
2. The appellant is the tenant of the suit premises from a time prior to 1944. The third respondent purchased the property from erstwhile owner in July, 1969 and thus became the landlord. The appellant defaulted in payment of rent to the third respondent from October 1, 1969 to May 31, 1970. That gave rise to the litigation between the appellant and the third respondent who filed the suit against the appellant for eviction on the ground of default in payment of rent. The suit was decreed by the trial court. In the revision against the order of eviction, the appellant was unsuccessful as the learned Additional District Judge confirmed the order of eviction against him. However, when the matter was carried before the High Court in a writ petition the order of eviction was quashed and the case was remanded to the trial court for fresh disposal in accordance with law in the light of the observations made therein. After remand, the trial court again decreed the suit against the appellant and the revisional court confirmed it. The appellant unsuccessfully assailed the order of the revisional authority in the High Court in the writ petition. By the impugned order, the High Court declined to interfere with it and dismissed the writ petition.
2. The main contention of the appellant as before the courts below, is that the rate of rent is not Rs.65/- but only Rs 51/- and thus there has been no default on payment of rent. This was not believed by the courts below either in the first round of litigation or in the second round. We, therefore, do not find any reason to interfere with the concurrent findings recorded by the courts below and confirmed by the High Court in the order under appeal. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed. However, the appellant is granted time till December 31,2000 to hand over the vacant possession of the suit premises to the third respondent, subject to his paying the rent regularly and giving an undertaking within four weeks from today that be will hand over the vacant possession of the suit premises on or before December 31, 2000 and a further undertaking that he will not sublet the premises during this period. There shall be no order as to costs.
1. This appeal by special leave is from the judgment of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in W.P. 4854/87n dated February 25, 1991.
2. The appellant is the tenant of the suit premises from a time prior to 1944. The third respondent purchased the property from erstwhile owner in July, 1969 and thus became the landlord. The appellant defaulted in payment of rent to the third respondent from October 1, 1969 to May 31, 1970. That gave rise to the litigation between the appellant and the third respondent who filed the suit against the appellant for eviction on the ground of default in payment of rent. The suit was decreed by the trial court. In the revision against the order of eviction, the appellant was unsuccessful as the learned Additional District Judge confirmed the order of eviction against him. However, when the matter was carried before the High Court in a writ petition the order of eviction was quashed and the case was remanded to the trial court for fresh disposal in accordance with law in the light of the observations made therein. After remand, the trial court again decreed the suit against the appellant and the revisional court confirmed it. The appellant unsuccessfully assailed the order of the revisional authority in the High Court in the writ petition. By the impugned order, the High Court declined to interfere with it and dismissed the writ petition.
2. The main contention of the appellant as before the courts below, is that the rate of rent is not Rs.65/- but only Rs 51/- and thus there has been no default on payment of rent. This was not believed by the courts below either in the first round of litigation or in the second round. We, therefore, do not find any reason to interfere with the concurrent findings recorded by the courts below and confirmed by the High Court in the order under appeal. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed. However, the appellant is granted time till December 31,2000 to hand over the vacant possession of the suit premises to the third respondent, subject to his paying the rent regularly and giving an undertaking within four weeks from today that be will hand over the vacant possession of the suit premises on or before December 31, 2000 and a further undertaking that he will not sublet the premises during this period. There shall be no order as to costs.
