Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
RAKESH TIWARI, J.
Mohd. Sayeed and Others – Appellants
Versus
Shahanshah Alam and Another – Respondents
Decided On : 26-07-2007
Tenancy - Eviction - U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 - Section 20(4) - Notice served and compliance with rent deposit - [Tenancy - Eviction - U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 - Section 20(4)] - [Section 20(4)] - The court held that the notice served on the tenants was deemed to be served as they had demanded a copy of the sale deed in response to the notice. The court also found that the tenants had not complied with the provisions of Section 20(4) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972, and had defaulted in payment of rent, leading to their eviction.
Fact of the Case:
The dispute involved a residential tenancy in Kanpur Nagar, with the landlords seeking eviction of the tenants for arrears of rent and non-compliance with notice.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the notice served on the tenants was deemed to be served, and the tenants had not complied with the provisions of Section 20(4) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972, leading to their eviction.
Issues: The issues included the legality of the notice served, compliance with Section 20(4) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972, and entitlement to relief for the landlords.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the notice served on the tenants was deemed to be served, and the tenants had not complied with the provisions of Section 20(4) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972, leading to their eviction.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed, and the tenants were directed to hand over possession of the accommodation to the landlords.
RAKESH TIWARI, J.
1. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.
2. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution has been filed for issuance of a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari for quashing the order dated 18.2.2006 passed by the Judge Small Causes Court, Kanpur Nagar in Suit No. 255 of 2002 and the order dated 19.7.2007 passed by the Additional District Judge, Kanpur Nagar in Revision No. 8 of 2007.
3. The petitioners have also prayed for issuance of a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the courts below to pass order afresh in accordance with law and not to evict the petitioners from the tenanted house.
4. The dispute relates to a residential accommodation of House No. 509, Faithfulganj Cantonment, Kanpur Nagar, which was under the tenancy of one All Raza. The accommodation under the tenancy of All Raza consists of one room, one covered varandah and the roof, which remained under the tenancy of Ali Raza for about 60 years till his death, i.e. 1996.
5. It is claimed by the petitioners that they were normally residing with Ali Raza and inherited the tenancy rights from him who was residing in the aforesaid accommodation. They had also erected a tin roofed structure on the land of cantonment board just in-front of and apart from the tenanted accommodation of the petitioners.
6. It appears that the respondents had purchased the aforesaid house No. 509, Falthfulgnaj, Cantonment, Kanpur Nagar in which the petitioners were also tenants on 17.7.2001. Thereafter they gave notice dated 28.7.2001 to the petitioners which was replied by them vide reply dated 13.8.2001. Another notice dated 6.5.2002 was given to the petitioners which is said to have been returned on 8.5.2002 with the remark "Not claimed." As the petitioners did not make compliance of the notices, their tenancy stood terminated, S.C.C. Suit No. 255 of 2002 was thereafter filed by the respondents against the petitioners for arrears of rent and ejectment on the ground of default in payment of rent.
7. The petitioners appeared in the suit and contested it by filing their written statement. In the written statement the stand taken by them was that they had not received or refused to accept notice dated 6.5.2002 and had only received one notice dated 28.7.2001 which was replied by them. It was further stated in their written statement that they were not defaulters in payment of any rent and that they have already made deposits of the rent due on the first date of hearing. The extent of the accommodation in dispute was also disputed by the petitioners inter-alia, that the tenanted accommodation which was part of house No. 509, Faithfulgnaj, Cantonment, Kanpur Nagar under the tenancy of the petitioners constructed only of one room and not of two rooms as has been wrongly alleged in the plaint.
8. It is undisputed that the petitioners deposited the rent in the court below up to December, 2006 vide tender through lists 88-C/1 to 88-C/7.
9. The trial court on the basis of the pleadings of the parties framed three following issues.
1. Whether the notice sent by the plaintiffs is a legal notice?
2. Whether the defendants have complied with the provisions of Section 20(4) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972?
3. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to any relief?
10. Issue No. 1 was decided in favour of the landlords holding that admittedly the notice dated 28.7.2001 was accepted by the petitioners and that the notice dated 6.5.2002 sent by registered post in respect of arrears of rent is said to have been returned with the remark "Not claimed" was also served at their address and was in the knowledge of the petitioners. The trial court relying upon paragraph 3 of the written statement of the petitioners held that the notice dated 28.7.2001 was admittedly served on the petitioners and that another notice dated 6.5.2002 sent by registered post which has been returned back with the remark "Not claimed" will be presumed to be served
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
