Back
2014 Supreme(All) 3615
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Sudhir Agarwal, J.
Magan Bihari Kapoor and Others - Appellant
Versus
III-A.D.J., Etah and Another - Respondent
Writ - A No. - 37027 of 1997
Decided On : 29-04-2014
For the Petitioner:- Shashi Nandan,Namit Srivastava
For the Respondent:- S.C.,R.K.Jain
The court declined to interfere with the findings of the Revisional Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Headnote:
Condonation of Delay - Restoration Application - The court allowed the condonation of delay in filing the restoration application, recalled the previous order, and restored the writ petition for further hearing.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, who were landlords, filed a suit for eviction of the tenant on the ground of default in payment of rent. The Trial Court's findings were reversed by the Revisional Court, and the petitioner sought interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that there was no illegality or perversity in the findings recorded by the Revisional Court, and accordingly dismissed the petition.
Issues: The issues revolved around the default in payment of rent by the tenant and the applicability of Section 20(4) of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972.
Ratio Decidendi: The court upheld the Revisional Court's findings and declined to interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed, and any interim order was vacated.
Sudhir Agarwal, J.
1. This is an application seeking condonation of delay in filing the restoration application.
2. Heard.
3. Cause shown for delay in filing restoration application is sufficient.
4. Delay in filing restoration application is condoned.
5. This application, accordingly, stands allowed.
Sudhir Agarwal, J.
1. Heard Sri Namit Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioners-applicants and Sri Rahul Jain, learned counsel for the respondent.
2. This is an application for recall of order dated 28.5.2009 passed by this Court dismissing the writ petition for want of prosecution.
3. Reason shown for non appearance have been explained satisfactorily. The application is allowed. Order dated 28.5.2009 is hereby recalled.
Sudhir Agarwal,J.
1. Order dated 28.5.2009 having been recalled vide order of date passed on restoration application, the writ petition is restored to its original number. As requested by learned counsels for parties, I proceed to hear and decide this matter finally at this stage under the Rules of the Court.
2. Heard Sri Namit Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Rahul Jain, learned counsel for the respondent-tenant.
3. The petitioners are landlord. They instituted SCC Suit No. 20 of 1993 for eviction of respondent-tenant on the ground of default in payment of rent. Trial Court decided issue no.3 holding that though, on the date, when suit was instituted, defendant-respondent was liable for payment of rent from September, 1990 to April, 1993 but it appears that entire rent has been paid and nothing is due. Again, proceeding to decide issue no.5 with regard to benefit of Section 20(4) of Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as "Act, 1972"), Trial Court found that though other dues etc. have been paid but interest @ 1.5% p.m. has not been deposited by tenant and, therefore, he was not entitled for benefit under Section 20(4) of Act, 1972. This findings recorded in respect to issue no.5 has been reversed by Revisional Court observing that there was no agreement between the parties requiring tenant to pay interest and, therefore, when rent was paid, non payment of interest would not disentitle tenant for the benefit under Section 20(4) of Act, 1972.
4. Counsel for the petitioner could not show any illegality or perversity in the findings recorded by Revisional Court warranting interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
5. Dismissed.
6. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.
