Back
2013 Supreme(All) 1003
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Sibghat Ullah Khan, J.
Shailesh Kumar and Another -Appellant
Versus
Mahendra Pratap Agarwal and Others -Respondent
Civil Revision No. 178 of 2006
Decided On : 05-04-2013
For the Petitioner:- R.P.Singh
For the Respondent:- Brij Raj Tripathi
The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of U.P. Act No.13 of 1972, the fixation of rent, and the jurisdiction of the R.C. & E.O. in relation to the eviction of tenants.
Headnote:
Revision - Eviction of tenants - U.P. Act No.13 of 1972 - Section 21(1)(b), Section 24(2), Section 35 - The court discussed the application of U.P. Act No.13 of 1972, the fixation of rent, and the jurisdiction of the R.C. & E.O. in relation to the eviction of tenants. The court also referenced Sarup Singh Vs. Union of India, AIR 2011 SC 540 = 2011 (11) SCC 198 to support its decision.
Fact of the Case:
The landlords filed a suit against the tenants for eviction from a tenanted shop and recovery of arrears of rent. The tenants had deposited certain amounts, and the court permitted the landlords to withdraw the said amount.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the entire amount had been deposited well within time, and the deficiency had also been made good in accordance with the time granted by the judgment of the earlier writ petition, hence the tenant was not a defaulter. The court also held that U.P. Act No.13 of 1972 was applicable to the building in dispute.
Issues: The issues included the fixation of rent, the jurisdiction of the R.C. & E.O. in imposing conditions on the allotment order, and the applicability of U.P. Act No.13 of 1972.
Ratio Decidendi: The court found that the direction in the order of R.C. & E.O. regarding the automatic end of the allotment order and the building not being covered by U.P. Act No.13 of 1972 was without jurisdiction. The court also emphasized the applicability of U.P. Act No.13 of 1972 to the building in dispute.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the revision and directed the tenant to pay Rs.1000/- per month rent to the landlords applicants.
Heard learned counsel for both the parties.
2. This revision under Section 25, Provincial Small Causes Courts Act is directed against judgment and decree dated 03.10.2006 passed by J.S.C.C./ A.D.J./ Special Judge, S.C. & S.T. Act, Bahraich in S.C.C. Suit No.4 of 1997 dismissing the suit of the landlords applicants, which had been filed by them against tenants respondents for their eviction from the tenanted shop in dispute and for recovery of arrears of rent. Tenants respondents had deposited certain amounts in the suit. Through the impugned judgment, plaintiffs were permitted to withdraw the said amount.
3. Since before 1986, original defendant Smt. Savitri Agarwal (who died during pendnecy of the suit before the court below and was substituted by her legal representatives who are the respondents in this revision) was tenant of an old dilapidated shop on behalf of plaintiffs applicants. Landlords instituted Case No.21 of 1986 against her under Section 21(1)(b) of U.P. Act No.13 of 1972 for her eviction on the ground that the then tenanted shop was in dilapidated condition. The case was decided on the basis of compromise on 07.10.1986. It was agreed that tenant would vacate the shop, landlords would reconstruct the same and thereafter the newly constructed shop would again be given on lease to the same tenant at the old rent of Rs.200/- per month. Pursuant thereto, the old shop was vacated by the tenant, new shop was constructed by the landlord and was given to the same tenant Smt. Savitri Devi on rent of Rs.200/- per month.
4. Smt. Savitri Devi filed an allotment application also under Section 24(2) of the Act on 01.01.1987 for allotment of the newly constructed shop possession of which had already been given to her before R.C. & E.O./ City Magistrate, Baharich initial number of which was 69. Lastly it was numbered as Case No.7 of 1996, Smt. Savitri Agarwal Vs. Radhey Shyam. The said case was decided on 09.02.1996. The R.C. & E.O. allotted the shop to her at the rent of Rs.300/- per month. It was further directed that the balance rent (Rs.100/- per month, i.e. the difference between Rs.300/- and Rs.200/-) w.e.f. 01.01.1987 would be paid by the tenant within one month otherwise allotment order would automatically come to an end and the shop would be treated to be not covered by U.P. Act No.13 of 1972. The reason for this forfeiture clause given in the body of the judgment was that allotment application had been filed after about two months even though the period was only one month as provided by Rule 20 of the Rules framed under the Act (one month from the date on which the construction of the building sought to be allotted is complete). The rate of rent was fixed to be Rs.300/- per month on the ground that cost of new construction was Rs.30,000/-. It was further observed that even though in the compromise it had been agreed that rate of rent would be Rs.200/- per month, however as application was filed after more than one month, hence Rs.300/- per month rent was being fixed.
5. Against the said order, tenant Smt. Savitri Devi filed Rent Appeal No.21 of 1996. The main aspect which the lower appellate court discussed was regarding fixation of Rs.300/- per month rent as against the agreed rent of Rs.200/- per month. The lower appellate court held that in view of the formula given under Section 24(2) of the Act, the rent was rightly fixed to be Rs.300/- per month by the R.C. & E.O. The lower appellate court categorically held that it was not proved that tenant had filed the application beyond one month from the date of completion of construction. However, the lower appellate court did not say anything specifically about the findings of the R.C. & E.O. that in case of default of payment of the balance rent within one month, allotment would automatically come to an end and building would not be covered by the Rent Control Act. Appeal was dismissed on 17.02.1997. Thereafter, Writ Petition No.56 (R/C) of 1997 wa
