Back
2014 Supreme(All) 551
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
BEFORE : KRISHNA MURARI, J.
M/s. TULLU MOTORS PVT. LTD. ....Petitioner
Versus
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE AND OTHERS ....Respondents
(Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 64482 of 2012 with Civil Revision No. 519 of 2011, decided on 10th March, 2014)
Counsel :
Siddharth and Mrs. Vatsala for the Petitioner; Ms. Swati Agarwal and Ravi Kiran Jain for the Respondents.
Headnote:U.P. Urban Building (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972—Sections 30 and 2(g)—U.P. Urban Building (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Rules, 1972—Rule 21—Transfer of Property Act, 1882—Section 106—Provincial Small Cause Court Act—Section 17(1)—Code of Civil Procedure, 1908—Order IX, Rule 13—Deposit of rent—Jurisdiction of Court to permit—Determination of—Admittedly rent of accommodation was more than Rs. 2,000—Application of 1972 Act—In view of Section 2(g) of 1972 Act, building in question was outside the purview of 1972 Act—As such application under Section 30(1) moved by tenant was not maintainable and was rightly held dismissed—Where provisions of Act are not applicable and after the application under Section 30 (1) was dismissed on question of jurisdiction of Court to permit such deposit, obviously the amount deposited cannot be withdrawn by the landlord, nor the Court where it was deposited can permit withdrawal or pay it to the landlord—Landlord since cannot withdraw the amount deposited, the same held not liable to be adjusted towards the compliance of proviso to Section 17 (1) of the PSCC Act—Petition filed by tenant dismissed—And revision filed by landlord allowed. [Paras 18 to 42]
Result; Order Accordingly.
Hon’ble Krishna Murari, J.—The writ petition and the civil revision are between the same parties arising out of same dispute, hence, have been heard together and are being decided by this common order.
2. SCC Suit No. 12 of 2009 was filed by the landlord-Subodh Kumar Agarwal seeking a decree of ejectment and arrears of rent from 1.2.2008 to 5.1.2009 amounting to Rs. 1,24,318.50/- alongwith mesne profits and future mesne profits. Suit was filed on the allegation that premises No. 9/471, of which he is exclusive landlord, was let out to M/s. Tullu Motors Pvt. Ltd., a company constituted under the Companies Act on a monthly rent of Rs. 11,133/-. It was further alleged that since the rent of the accommodation was more than Rs. 2000/-, hence, provisions of U.P. Act 13 of 1972 (for short the Act) were not applicable and the tenancy was at will terminable at any time, after notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. It was further pleaded that tenant was in arrears of rent from February 2008 and in spite of repeated demands and requests, the same was not paid. It was also pleaded that tenancy was terminated vide notice dated 26.8.2008, which was sent through registered post and was returned back with the endorsement of ‘Refusal’ and even after expiry of 30 days of the notice period, neither the outstanding arrears was paid nor the accommodation was vacated. The suit was decreed vide ex parte judgement and order dated 5.11.2009, inasmuch as the tenant did not put in appearance. Thereafter, an application under Order IX Rule 13 C.P.C. was moved by the tenant for recall of the ex parte decree. Judge, Small Causes Court vide order dated 25.10.2011 allowed the application filed by the tenant and set aside the ex parte decree. Aggrieved by the same, the landlord has filed Civil Revision No. 519 of 2011.
3. Writ Petition No. 64482 of 2012 has been filed by the tenant-M/s. Tullu Motors Pvt. Ltd. challenging the order dated 23.4.2011 passed by Civil Judge (Junior Division), Varansi in Misc. Case No. 129 of 2008 rejecting the application under Section 30 (1) of the Act and the order dated 16.8.2012 passed by Additional District Judge, Court No. 5, Varansi rejecting the revision challenging the order of the Civil Judge (Junior Division).
4. After the landlord issued notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, the tenant made an application before Civil Judge (Junior Division) under Section 30 (1) of the Act on 17.9.2008 for depositing the rent on the allegation that the rent was being wrongly and illegally refused by the landlord and the same may be deposited in the Court at his own risk.
5. A notice was issued to the landlord, who instead of applying for withdrawal, filed objection alleging that since the rent of the disputed accommodation was more than Rs. 2000/-, as such, the provisions of the Act were not applicable and the application under Section 30 (1) was not maintainable and liable to be rejected.
6. Civil Judge (Junior Division) vide order dated 23.4.2011 dismissed the application on the ground that Court has no jurisdiction in the matter, inasmuch the rent being more than Rs. 2000/-, the building was outside the purview of the Act. The tenant went up in revision before the District Judge, which was also dismissed vide order dated 16.8.2012.
7. The two orders have been challenged by the tenant by filing Writ Petition No. 64482 of 2012.
8. I have heard Shri Siddharth assisted by Mrs. Vatsala for the tenant-Tullu Motors Pvt. Ltd. and Shri Ravi Kiran Jain, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Ms. Swati Agarwal for landlord-Subodh Kumar Agarwal.
9. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the writ petition and the civil revision, both are being disposed of finally at the admission stage.
10. Shri Siddharth submitted that the order passed by the Civil Judge rejecting the application under Section 30 (1) of the Act on an objection filed by the landlord is illegal, since there is no provis
