Back
2018 Supreme(All) 2489
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
SANGEETA CHANDRA, J.
Anil Kumar - Appellant
Versus
Sri Satya Narain - Respondent
Matters Under Article 227 No. 2202 of 2018
Decided On : 22-11-2018
For the Appellant : Siddhartha Srivastava
For the Respondent: Anil Kumar Pandey
The burden of proof lies with the landlord to establish exemption from the Rent Control Act, and official documents are presumed to be genuine.
Headnote:
EVICTION - U.P. Rent Control Act - U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 - Section 2(2), Section 106 of Transfer of Property Act - [Section 2(2), Section 106 of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972, Section 106 of Transfer of Property Act]
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff filed a suit for eviction of the defendant on the ground of alleged default in payment of rent. The defendant denied the allegations and challenged the maintainability of the suit. The trial court decreed the suit, which was challenged in a revision. The court considered issues related to the applicability of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972, determination of the rate of rent, and validity of the notice for eviction.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the tenant failed to prove the rate of rent and the applicability of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972. It upheld the trial court's decision, stating that the tenant must hand over possession of the shop and pay damages to the landlord.
Issues: Applicability of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972, determination of the rate of rent, validity of the eviction notice
Ratio Decidendi: The landlord has the burden to prove exemption from the Rent Control Act. The court relied on official documents and found no error in the trial court's decision regarding the applicability of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed, and the tenant was directed to hand over possession of the shop and pay damages to the landlord.
JUDGMENT :
SANGEETA CHANDRA, J.
1. This petition has been filed by the tenant who was the respondent for setting aside the judgment and order dated 29.11.2016 passed in SCC Suit No. 08 of 2006 by the Civil Judge, Junior Division / Judge Small Causes Kasganj and the order dated 08.01.2018 passed in SCC Revision No. 06 of 2016 by the Additional District & Session Judge, Kasganj.
2. I have heard Sri Sidharth Srivastava appearing for the petitioner and Sri Ratnesh Srivastava assisted by Sri Anil Kumar Pandey for the respondent landlord.
3. The facts leading to filing of this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India are as follows:
The plaintiff respondent filed SCC Suit No. 08 of 2006 for eviction of the defendant petitioner on the ground of alleged default in payment of rent. The defendant / petitioner filed his written statement on 26.07.2007 denying the contents of the plaint and alleging that he had suitably replied the notice dated 17.02.2006, claiming arrears of rent and directing determination of lease, and the SCC suit was not maintainable. Evidence was recorded of the plaintiff / respondent and his witness and that of the defendant / petitioner and his witness and the learned Trial Court decreed the suit by its judgment and order dated 17.05.2012. The plaintiff petitioner challenged the judgment and order dated 17.05.2012 in Civil Revision No. 340 of 2012. This Court by its judgment and order dated 26.11.2014 set aside the order passed by the learned Trial Court and remanded the matter. On remand additional evidence was led by the plaintiff / respondent which evidence it is alleged was inadmissible in law regarding rate of rent and date of assessment by the Municipal Board of the property in question to establish that it fell out of the purview of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972. It has been alleged that the trial Court relied on the fresh evidence submitted by the plaintiff respondent ignoring his clear admission in his cross-examination and decreed the suit again by its judgment and order dated 29.11.2014. Aggrieved by the same, an SCC Revision No. 06 of 2016 was filed by the defendant petitioner. It has also been dismissed in summary manner by the Additional District Judge on 08.01.2018.
4. It has been argued by Sri Sidharth Srivastava that the learned Trial Court failed to consider the observations made by this Court in its judgment and order dated 26.11.2014 in Civil Revision No. 340 of 2012 and the impugned orders are beyond the scope of remand order.
5. The learned counsel has led this Court through the judgment and order dated 26.11.2014. This Court had remanded the matter on three issues, (a) whether U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 was applicable to the shop in dispute with regard to the explanation given under Section 2(2) of the Rent Control Act, and (b) the completion certificate, if any of the building being intimated to the Local Authority and (c) the assessment being carried out by the Local Authority of the same. The date of completion of construction was crucial and have to be decided by the learned Trial Court, also the rate of the rent was being seriously disputed between the parties. The tenant was claiming that the shop in question had been rented out to him at the rate of Rs. 200/-per month, whereas the Landlord has claimed Rs. 2100/-per month as rent.
6. It has been argued that this Court had observed in its judgment and order dated 26.11.2014 evidence was required to be considered by the learned trial Court with regard to determination of the rate of rent as it would ultimately determine whether the SCC suit was maintainable. It was been necessary to determine whether any default was committed by the tenant in payment of such rent. This Court while remanding the matter to the learned Trial court had directed the tenant to deposit rent at the rate of Rs. 2100/-per month for use and occupation of the suit property, till the matter was finally decided and also to clear all dues regarding rent/ damages at the a
