Back
SANGEETA CHANDRA
Surendra Pal Vishwakarma – Appellant
Versus
Additional District Judge, Court No. 4, Sitapur – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Abhishek Dhaon, for the respondent nos.3 and 4.
2. This petition has been filed praying for quashing of the order dated 23.02.2021 passed by the Judge, Small Causes Court, Sitapur and also the order dated 12.04.2022 passed by the Additional District Judge, Court No.04, Sitapur, dismissing the Revision No.04 of 2021: Surendra Pal Vishwakarma Vs. Smt. Sudharani Sinha and another.
3. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that Late Indra pal had taken two shops and one room on rent from the predecessor-in-interest of the respondent nos. 3 & 4 Shri Krishna Kumar Sinha at the rate of Rs.350/-per month inclusive of all taxes. One was taken initially on rent on 01.04.1985. Later on on 11.09.1989 another shop adjacent to the tenanted premises was taken on rent at the rate of Rs.350/-per month i.e. total of Rs.650/-per month was given by the father of the petitioner to the predecessor-in-interest of the respondent nos. 3 & 4 for two shops and one room situated in Mohalla Sukkhumal in the city of Sitapur. The rent continued to be paid regularly every month but no receipt was given either by the predecessor-in-i
The legal requirements for proving rent payment and depositing rent and interest under U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 and Order XV Rule 5 C.P.C. must be strictly complied with by tenants in rent disputes.
The burden of proof lies with the tenant to establish payment of arrears of rent, and failure to deposit rent during the pendency of the Suit can lead to eviction.
Strict compliance with the deposit requirements under Order XV Rule 5 CPC is mandatory for tenants in eviction suits, and inconsistent conduct may not entitle them to relief.
The court established that consistent non-payment of rent during proceedings justifies eviction under the UP Rent Act.
Failure to regularly deposit admitted monthly rent under Order 15 Rule 5 CPC without timely representation constitutes deliberate defiance justifying striking off tenant's defence in eviction suit.
Point of law: When the aid of Revisional Court is invoked on the revisional side, it can interfere within the permissible parameters provided in the statute. It goes without saying that if a revision....
A tenant must deposit all arrears of rent, including time-barred amounts, to claim protection from eviction under Section 15(3) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act.
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
