Back
2002 Supreme(All) 1642
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
S. P. Mehrotra, J.
JAMAL - Appellant
Versus
IQBAL - Respondents
C. M. W. P. 47597 Of 2002
Decided On : 11/12/2002
Pankaj Mithal
The main legal point established in the judgment is the significance of complying with the provisions of Section 20(4) of the Act in a tenancy dispute, and the implications of non-compliance on the outcome of the case.
Headnote:
EVICTION - Tenancy Dispute - Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, Section 20(4) of Act No. 13 of 1972 - [Section 106, Section 20(4)] - The court discussed the provisions of Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act and Section 20(4) of Act No. 13 of 1972 in relation to a tenancy dispute and the requirements for eviction of a tenant. The court emphasized the conditions for granting the benefit of Section 20(4) and the implications of non-compliance with its provisions, ultimately influencing the decision to dismiss the writ petition.
Fact of the Case:
The dispute involved a tenancy in an accommodation in Meerut, with the landlord filing a suit for ejectment and arrears of rent against the tenant. The lower courts decreed the suit for eviction and arrears of rent against the petitioner, leading to the filing of a revision and subsequently a writ petition.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the notice of demand and determination of tenancy was duly proved, and the petitioner failed to comply with the provisions of Section 20(4) of the Act, leading to the dismissal of the writ petition.
Issues: The issues involved the validity of the notice of demand and determination of tenancy, compliance with the provisions of Section 20(4) of the Act, and the findings of the lower courts regarding the acquisition of another residential building by the petitioner.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the compliance with the notice of demand and determination of tenancy, and the petitioner's failure to meet the requirements of Section 20(4) of the Act, leading to the dismissal of the writ petition.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed, and the petitioner was granted time to vacate the disputed accommodation under certain conditions.
( 1 ) THIS writ petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of india, inter alia, seeking quashing of the Judgment and order dated 1. 5. 2002 (Annexure-8 to the writ petition) passed by the learned Additional District Judge/ Special Judge, N. D. P. S. Act, meerut and the judgment and order dated 19. 11. 1998 (Annexure-7 to the writ petition) passed by the learned Additional Judge, Small Cause Court, Meerut.
( 2 ) THE dispute relates to an accommodation in house No. 34 situated in Mohalla Purwa Hafiz abdul Karim, Meerut, the details whereof have been given at the foot of the plaint of the suit referred to hereinafter. The said accommodation has, hereinafter been referred to as the disputed accommodation.
( 3 ) FROM the allegations made in the writ petition, it appears that Aziz Uddin, the predecessor-in-interest of the respondents filed a suit for ejectment and arrears of rent, mesne profits, etc. against the petitioner in respect of the disputed accommodation. The said suit was registered as S. C. C. Suit No. 114 of 1992. A copy of the plaint of the said suit has been filed as annexure-1 to the writ petition.
( 4 ) IT was, inter alia, alleged in the said plaint that the said Aziz Uddin, the predecessor-in-interest of the respondents was the owner and landlord of the said House No. 34 situated in Mohalla purwa Hafiz Abdul Karim, Meerut ; and that the petitioner was the tenant in the disputed accommodation at a monthly rent of Rs. 50 and that rent for the period from 1. 2. 1982 to 11. 5. 1986 was due from the petitioner ; and that a notice dated 31. 3. 1986 of demand and determination of tenancy under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act was given on behalf of the said Aziz Uddin to the petitioner which was served on the petitioner on 11. 4. 1986; and that despite the service of the said notice, the petitioner neither paid rent nor vacated the disputed accommodation,
( 5 ) THE said suit was contested by the petitioner who filed written statement dated 15. 5. 1998, a copy whereof has been filed as Annexure-2 to the writ petition.
( 6 ) EVIDENCE was led by both the sides in the said suit.
( 7 ) IT appears that during the pendency of the said suit, the said Aziz Uddin, the original plaintiff died on 20th August, 1997, and the respondents were brought on record as the heirs and legal representatives of the said Aziz Uddin.
( 8 ) THE learned Additional Judge, Small Cause Court, Meerut, by the said judgment and order dated 19. 11. 1998, decreed the said suit for ejectment, arrears of rent, mesne profits etc. against the petitioner.
( 9 ) AGAINST the said judgment and order dated 19. 11. 1998, the petitioner filed a revision under section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act which was registered as Revision No. 608 of 1998.
( 9 ) AGAINST the said judgment and order dated 19. 11. 1998, the petitioner filed a revision under section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act which was registered as Revision No. 608 of 1998.
( 10 ) BY the judgment and order dated 1. 5. 2002, the learned Additional District Judge/special judge, N. D. P. S. Act, Meerut; dismissed the said revision filed by the petitioner.
( 11 ) THEREAFTER, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.
( 12 ) I have heard Sri Pankaj Mithal, learned counsel for the petitioner. Sri Pankaj Mithal submits that the said notice of demand and determination of tenancy was not: duly proved, and as such, the said suit could not be decreed.
( 13 ) HAVING considered the said submission made by Sri Mithal, I am unable to agree with the same. A perusal of the statement of Smt, Shah Jahan examined on behalf of the plaintiff (Annexure-3 to the writ petition) shows that the carbon copy of the said notice (Paper No. 10g)was duly proved, and the same was exhibited as Exhibit No. 1.
( 14 ) IN view of the fact that the said carbon copy of the notice was proved by the said witness and the same was also exhibited, it is not
