Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Ashutosh Srivastava, J.
Shiv Ji Agrahari – Petitioner
Versus
Smt Urmila Srivastava and Another – Respondents
Matters Under Article 227 No. 3635 of 2024
Decided On : 21-03-2024
Amendment Application - Tenancy Protection - UP Act No. 13 of 1972, Section 20(4), Transfer of Property Act, Section 114 - The court discussed the applicability of Section 114 of the Transfer of Property Act and its requirement for relief against forfeiture for non-payment of rent. The court found that the proposed amendment seeking protection under Section 114 was misconceived and unnecessary, as the tenancy had been determined by a simple notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, and there was no case for forfeiture of tenancy. The court also emphasized that there was no requirement to mention Section 114 in the written statement, as complete pleadings had already been taken in the original written statement.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a tenant, sought protection under Section 114 of the Transfer of Property Act in a suit for eviction and recovery of arrears of rent and damages. The petitioner's amendment application seeking protection under Section 114 was rejected by the Revisional Court.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the proposed amendment seeking protection under Section 114 was misconceived and unnecessary, as the tenancy had been determined by a simple notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, and there was no case for forfeiture of tenancy. The court also emphasized that there was no requirement to mention Section 114 in the written statement, as complete pleadings had already been taken in the original written statement.
Issues: The main issue was the rejection of the petitioner's amendment application seeking protection under Section 114 of the Transfer of Property Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the proposed amendment seeking protection under Section 114 was misconceived and unnecessary, as the tenancy had been determined by a simple notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, and there was no case for forfeiture of tenancy. The court also emphasized that there was no requirement to mention Section 114 in the written statement, as complete pleadings had already been taken in the original written statement.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed, and no costs were awarded.
JUDGMENT :
1. Heard Shri Syed Wajid Ali, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri A.K. Pathak, learned counsel for the caveator-respondent no. 2.
2. The challenge in this petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is to the order dated 08.01.2024 passed by the learned Additional District Judge/Court No. 6, Gorakhpur, in SCC Revision No. 38 of 2022 whereby and whereunder the amendment application moved by the petitioner seeking amendment in the written statement at the Revisional Stage has been rejected.
3. It is the case of the petitioner that he is a tenant in a premises let out to his deceased father in the year 2004 initially at Rs. 680/-per month subsequently enhanced to Rs. 1800/-per month. The premises is newly constructed and the provisions of the UP Act No. 13 of 1972 are not applicable. The landlord/respondents have instituted a SCC Suit, being SCC Suit No. 4 of 2015 for his eviction and recovery for arrears of rent and damages. The petitioner put in appearance in the proceedings and filed his written statement denying the plaint averments and specifically stating in para 22 of the written statement that on 28.03.2016 with the permission of the Court a sum of Rs. 33,000/-has been deposited and he has been depositing the rent for further months which is not being accepted by the landlord/ respondents. Since the amount of Rs. 33,000/-stands deposited the petitioner is entitled to benefit of Section 20 (4) of the Act. The learned Judge Small Cause Court vide the judgment and order dated 12.04.2022 has decreed the suit directing the petitioner to handover vacant possession of the tenanted premises within 30 days and also pay rent @ Rs. 1080/-per month from the date of filing of the suit till the date of handing over of possession. The learned Judge Small Cause Court has also held that the provisions of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 does not apply. Aggrieved, the petitioner has filed a SCC Revision under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act which has been registered as SCC Revision No. 38 of 2022.
4. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has moved an application seeking amendment in the written statement by incorporating the plea that his tenancy is protected under Section 114 of the Transfer of Property Act as the entire arrears of rent and damages together with interest thereon amounting to Rs. 33,000/-has been got deposited. The amendment application has been rejected by the impugned order after contest by the landlord/respondents.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the rejection of the amendment application (paper No. 9A2) by the Revisional Court is patently erroneous and the same is liable to be set aside. The amendment sought for is purely legal in nature and does not change the nature of the relief sought in the suit or the stand taken in the written statement. The Revisional Court while rejecting the Amendment has simply rejected the amendment application only on the ground that it ought to have been filed before the Court of first instance and what ever reason that has been stated in the amendment application are not liable to be accepted, without recording any findings regarding any reasons that the proposed amendment was withdrawing an admission or that it was not necessary for deciding the real controversy involved in the matter between the parties. It is accordingly prayed that the impugned order be set aside and the amendment application be allowed. Reliance has been placed upon a decision of coordinate Bench reported in 2006 (3) ARC 329.
6. Per contra, Shri A.K. Pathak, learned counsel for the caveator/ landlord/respondents has opposed the petition by submitting that the petition as framed is misconceived and is liable to be dismissed at the threshold. No illegality or irregularity has been committed by the Revisional Court in rejecting the amendment application. The petition is devoid of merits and is liable to be rejecte
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the proposed amendment seeking protection under Section 114 of the Transfer of Property Act was misconceived and unnecessary, as the tenancy h....
Compliance with statutory requirements for rent deposit is mandatory for tenants to avoid eviction under the Uttar Pradesh Urban Building Act.
Tenants must obtain written consent for material alterations; failure to do so can justify eviction under the relevant tenancy laws.
The failure to consider crucial evidence and make specific findings can render a judgment perverse and warrant its quashing.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the evidentiary value of admissions made in pleadings and the principle of approbate and reprobate.
The court emphasized a liberal approach to amendments in written statements, allowing alternative defenses to ensure a complete adjudication and prevent the miscarriage of justice.
Amendment can be allowed at any stage and the question of delay in moving amendment application should be decided not by calculating the period from the date of institution of Suit alone but by refer....
The applicability of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings Act was denied due to evidence of new construction, leading to lawful eviction under the Transfer of Property 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
