IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
SANGEETA CHANDRA, J.
Suraj Narain Gupta - Revisionist
Versus
Rati Chaturvedi - Opposite Party
S.C.C. Revision No.40 of 2018
Decided On : 20-12-2018
U.P. Act 1972 – Section 12 r/w 5,25 – Provincial Small Cause Court Act – Section 25 – Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Order 7&15 – Rule 5& 11 – Transfer of Property Act – Section 106 – Tenant praying for setting aside judgment and order passed by Additional District Judge/Judge, Small Causes Court, whereby suit has been decreed for eviction and removal of Electricity Meter and Generator and other items from property in dispute, and with direction to pay rent date of decision to plaintiff, and to pay damages for continued occupation after judgment till delivery of actual possession of property in dispute – Held, Maintainability of suit has been decided in favour of plaintiff by Trial Court by referring to demand per month as rent from defendant by plaintiff. –defendant had repeatedly alleged in his written statement and in his oral statement that he is not in unauthorized occupation, but had lawful tenancy over property in dispute since before 1950 since Cinema-hall had its Generator and Electricity meter placed in property in dispute – Perusal of judgment and order under Revision that Trial Court has rightly determined arrears of per month till date of judgment, and also directed payment of damages per month for room delivery of actual possession to landlady – Revision dismissed. (Paras. 47 to 53)
Facts of the case:
Tenant praying for setting aside judgment and order passed by Additional District Judge/Judge, Small Causes Court, whereby suit has been decreed for eviction and removal of Electricity Meter and Generator and other items from property in dispute, and with direction to pay rent date of decision to plaintiff, and to pay damages for continued occupation after judgment till delivery of actual possession of property in dispute.
Findings of the court
Maintainability of suit has been decided in favour of plaintiff by Trial Court by referring to demand per month as rent from defendant by plaintiff. –defendant had repeatedly alleged in his written statement and in his oral statement that he is not in unauthorized occupation, but had lawful tenancy over property in dispute since before 1950 since Cinema-hall had its Generator and Electricity meter placed in property in dispute – Perusal of judgment and order under Revision that Trial Court has rightly determined arrears of per month till date of judgment, and also directed payment of damages per month for room delivery of actual possession to landlady.
Result: Revision dismissed
1. This Revision has been filed by the tenant praying for setting aside the judgment and order dated 24.02.2018 passed in SCC Suit No. 79 of 2016: Smt. Rati Chaturvedi Vs. Suraj Narayan Gupta, Director, Moti Mahal Talkies (Chamariha Talkies Private Limited) passed by Additional District Judge/Judge, Small Causes Court, Kanpur Nagar whereby the suit has been decreed for eviction and removal of Electricity Meter and Generator and other items from the property in dispute, and with a direction to pay rent at the rate of Rs.100/- per month w.e.f. 23.10.1998 to the date of the decision to the plaintiff, and to pay the damages @ Rs. 2,500/- per month for continued occupation after the judgment till the delivery of actual possession of the property in dispute.
2. The facts relevant for decision of this Revision have been mentioned in the Stay Application filed along with the Revision. House No. 77/153 situated at Latouche Road, Kanpur Nagar was owned by one Raj Kumar Dhawan. It was taken on rent by Moti Mahal Talkies since before 1950. A part of the said property i.e. one big hall divided into three small rooms was purchased by Smt. Mridula Chaturvedi wife of Manoj Kumar Chaturvedi, Smt. Shashi Chaturvedi wife of Rajiv Kumar Chaturvedi and Smt. Rati Chaturvedi wife of Sanjeev Kumar Chaturvedi through registered sale deed dated 23.10.1998 from the erstwhile owner Shri Raj Kumar Dhawan. The tenant revisionist was using one room in the said big hall as Generator Room where his electricity meter was also installed for the Cinema-hall. Whereas, the rest of two rooms were being used as shops in the name of Swadeshi Mill Store.
3. One Akhilesh Kumar filed an application for allotment before the Rent Control and Eviction Officer under Section 12 read with Section 15 of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972. Smt. Rati Chaturvedi also filed an application for declaration of vacancy before the Rent Control and Eviction Officer.
4. Both these applications were taken up together by City Magistrate, Kanpur Nagar as Prescribed Authority. After local inspection and report being placed on record, a preliminary objection was raised with regard to the maintainability of the application under Sections - 12 and 15 of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 by Shri Suraj Narayan Gupta, Director of Moti Mahal Talkies saying that the Generator and Electricity meter of cinema-hall was housed in the property in dispute and the property being appurtenant to the cinema-hall, it should be treated as a part of the cinema-hall and thus exempted from the provisions of the Act under Section 2 (2).
5. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer found that the room in question admeasuring 15’ x 12’ was under occupation of Moti Mahal Talkies and was being used as its Generator Room. He, therefore, declared the said application under Sections 12 and 15 to be not maintainable as property of a Cinema-hall was exempted from the operation of the Rent Control Act.
6. Smt. Rati Chaturvedi as well as Shri Akhilesh Kumar both filed the Rent Revisions separately against the order dated 24.01.2009 passed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer. The Rent Revision No. 17 of 2009 and the Rent Revision No. 18 of 2009 were both dismissed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kanpur Nagar. The order of the Rent Control and Eviction Officer thus attained finality.
7. Smt. Rati Chaturvedi thereafter filed SCC Suit No. 79 of 2016 on 04.10.2016 for eviction of Shri Suraj Narayan Gupta, Director of Moti Mahal Talkies from the property in question and for award of rent @ Rs. 5,000/- per month and damages for unauthorized occupation.
8. The said suit was contested by the revisionist by filing his written statement denying that he was an unauthorized occupant and saying that he was a lawful tenant since before 1950 @ Rs. 100/- per month inclusive of all taxes, and that the agreed rent was last paid to the previous landlord in July, 1993. It was also alleged that the suit was not maintainable as it suffered fr
Ajeet Seeds Ltd. Vs. K. Gopala Krishnaiah, reported in
Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. Vs. Dilbahar
Om Prakash and another Vs. Mishri Lal (Dead) represented by his LR. Savitri Devi
Smt. Ramkubai Since Deceased By LRS and others Vs. Hajarimal Dhokalchand Chandak & others
SupremeToday
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.