Back
Allahabad High Court
S.P Mehrotra, J.
Kashi Nath – Appellant
Versus
Smt. Sushila Rastogi – Respondent
C.M.W.P No. 54565 of 2002
Decided On : 04-04-2003
Suit for eviction of tenant - Landlord and Tenant - Rent Control Act - Tenant attorned to the respondent as the owner and landlady of the disputed accommodation, and the petitioner also tendered rent at the rate of Rs. 10/- per month to the respondent in respect of the disputed accommodation - Courts below held that the rate of rent in respect of the disputed accommodation was Rs. 10/- per month - Petitioner challenged the said findings - Held, the submission of the petitioner cannot be accepted - No question of apportionment of rent was involved in the present case - The petitioner himself tendered Rs. 10/- per month as rent to the respondent in respect of the disputed accommodation - Petitioner was not entitled to the benefit of section 20 (4) of the Act - The findings recorded by the Courts below in this regard are in accordance with law.
Fact of the Case:
Suit for eviction of tenant - Landlord and Tenant - Rent Control Act - Tenant attorned to the respondent as the owner and landlady of the disputed accommodation, and the petitioner also tendered rent at the rate of Rs. 10/- per month to the respondent in respect of the disputed accommodation - Courts below held that the rate of rent in respect of the disputed accommodation was Rs. 10/- per month - Petitioner challenged the said findings.
Finding of the Court:
The submission of the petitioner cannot be accepted - No question of apportionment of rent was involved in the present case - The petitioner himself tendered Rs. 10/- per month as rent to the respondent in respect of the disputed accommodation - Petitioner was not entitled to the benefit of section 20 (4) of the Act - The findings recorded by the Courts below in this regard are in accordance with law.
Issues: Whether the rate of rent in respect of the disputed accommodation was Rs. 10/- per month - Whether the petitioner was entitled to the benefit of section 20 (4) of the Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The submission of the petitioner cannot be accepted - No question of apportionment of rent was involved in the present case - The petitioner himself tendered Rs. 10/- per month as rent to the respondent in respect of the disputed accommodation - Petitioner was not entitled to the benefit of section 20 (4) of the Act - The findings recorded by the Courts below in this regard are in accordance with law.
Final Decision: Petition Dismissed.
Judgment
S.P Mehrotra, J.:
The petitioner has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, inter-alia, praying for quashing the order dated 24.9.2002 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Court No. 9, Varanasi (Annexure-10 to the writ petition) and the order dated 11.12.2000 passed by the learned Judge, Small Cause Court, Varanasi (Annexure 8 to the writ petition).
2. The dispute relates to an accommodation consisting of one room on the ground floor towards North Western Corner of House No. Ck 48/5-A, Mohalla Harha, Raja Darwaja, Varanasi City. The said accommodation has, hereinafter, been referred to as “the disputed accommodation”.
3. The petitioner has filed, in this writ petition, the following supplementary affidavits :
(i) Supplementary affidavit sworn on 8th January, 2003.
(ii) Supplementary affidavit sworn on 4th February, 2003.
(iii) Supplementary affidavit sworn on 23rd February, 2003.
4. An affidavit sworn by Hanuman Das Rastogi on 23rd February, 2003 has been filed on behalf of the respondent.
5. In reply to the said affidavit sworn on 23rd February, 2003 filed on behalf of the respondent, the petitioner has filed a counter-affidavit sworn on 25th February, 2003.
6. From the allegations made in the writ petition and the affidavits filed on record, it appears that the respondent filed a suit against the petitioner for ejectment, arrears of rent, mesne profits etc. in respect of the disputed accommodation. It was, inter-alia, alleged by the respondent as plaintiff in the said suit that the respondent purchased house No. Ck 48/5-A from Gopal Prasad, son of late Moti Lal through a sale deed dated 23rd February, 1994, and since then, the respondent was owner and landlady in possession of the said house; and that the petitioner (defendant) was tenant in the disputed accommodation.
7. It was, inter-alia, further alleged by the respondent in the said suit that the respondent along with her husband just after purchase of the said house on the same day in presence of previous owner Gopal Prasad informed the petitioner (defendant) and other tenants residing in the said house that she had purchased the said house for her personal use and residence and asked them to vacate the said house; and that the petitioner (defendant) including other tenants gave assurance to the respondent (plaintiff) and her husband that very soon within one or two months the said house would be vacated; and that it was also assured that during the period, the petitioner (defendant) would pay Rs. 100/- per month as rent to the respondent (plaintiff) or her husband. It was, inter-alia, further alleged by the respondent (plaintiff) in the said suit that even after expiry of two months the petitioner (defendant) neither vacated the disputed accommodation nor paid any amount of rent due and again requested for two or three months' time to vacate the disputed accommodation and for payment of rent due at the rate of Rs. 100/- per month. It was, inter-alia, further alleged by the respondent (plaintiff) in the said suit that from the date of purchase of the said house No. Ck 48/5-A by respondent (plaintiff) ‘upto now’ the petitioner (defendant) had not paid any amount of rent due to the respondent (plaintiff) inspite of several requests and demands made by the respondent (plaintiff) and her husband in respect of the disputed accommodation. It was, inter-alia, further alleged by the respondent (plaintiff) in the said suit that the respondent (plaintiff) sent notice of demand dated 19.8.1995 under section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act on 22.8.1995 through registered post AD to the petitioner (defendant) but the petitioner (defendant) intentionally did not receive the same; and that thereafter, the respondent (plaintiff) sent another notice of demand dated 7.9.1995 under section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act on 8.9.1995 through registered post AD to the petitioner (defendant) but the same was refused by the petitioner (defen
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
