Back
2015 Supreme(All) 4087
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Sunita Agarwal, J.
Mahesh Chandra and Another - Appellant
Versus
Arun Kumar and 5 Ors - Respondent
Writ - A No. 64475 of 2014
Decided On : 08-12-2015
For the Petitioners:- Abu Bakht, Pramod Kumar Jain, Advocates.
For the Respondent:- Shiv Sagar Singh, Advocate.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the determination of the applicability of the Rent Control Act to a new building and the consequences of being declared unauthorized occupants.
Headnote:
Rent Control Act - New Building - The court found that the building in question was a new building and, therefore, the Rent Control Act was not applicable. The petitioners were declared unauthorized occupants and were directed to hand over possession of the shop to the respondents.
Fact of the Case:
The courts below found that the building in question was a new building and the Rent Control Act was not applicable. The petitioners were declared unauthorized occupants and were directed to hand over possession of the shop to the respondents.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioners were unauthorized occupants and were obligated to hand over the shop to the respondents. The court provided a timeline for the vacation of the shop and directed the calculation and adjustment of rent and damages payable to the respondent-landlord.
Issues: The main issue was whether the building in question fell under the purview of the Rent Control Act and whether the petitioners were unauthorized occupants.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the finding that the building was a new building and not subject to the Rent Control Act, leading to the declaration of the petitioners as unauthorized occupants and the direction to hand over possession of the shop to the respondents.
Final Decision: The writ petition was disposed of with the direction for the petitioners to vacate the shop within a specified timeline and the calculation and adjustment of rent and damages payable to the respondent-landlord.
Sunita Agarwal, J. –
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. Both the Courts below have recorded a categorical finding that the building in question is a new building and, therefore, U.P. Act No. 13 of Rent Control Act 1972, is not applicable. Tenancy has been determined by notice dated 12.04.2003 and after the period of thirty days from the date of notice, the petitioners became unauthorized occupant of the shop in question. A direction has been given to handover the possession of the shop within a period of two months and simultaneously for payment of rent and damages for the use of occupation of the building till the delivery of possession. The suit was decreed on 3.8.2013 and the Revision was rejected on 31.10.2014. Thereafter, an execution case was filed, which is pending.
3. Be that as it may, as the petitioners have been declared unauthorized occupants, they are under obligation to handover the shop in question to the respondents.
4. Sri Pramod Kumar Jain, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners assisted by Sri Abu Bakht, requests that petitioners shall vacate the shop in question within a period of three months from today and till then no coercive action shall be taken against them. To this submission, Sri Shiv Sagar Singh, learned counsel for the respondents has no objection, however, he submits that the petitioners may be directed to deposit the entire outstanding rent and damages which has been awarded by the Court below.
5. In view of these submissions, it is provided that the writ petitioners shall vacate the shop in question on or before 10.03.2016. The amount of rent and damages, which is payable to the respondent-landlord, would be calculated and adjusted towards the advance of L 1,10,000/- deposited by the petitioners. In case any amount is due towards the petitioners, the same shall also be paid at the time of delivery of the possession of the shop in question. In case of default on the part of the petitioners, the execution proceedings shall go ahead.
6. With these observations/directions, the writ petition is disposed of.
Petition disposed of.
