Mohd. Zubair vs Additional District Judge Court No. 13 Lucknow

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2023 Supreme(All) 2296

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
MANISH MATHUR, J.
Mohd. Zubair - Petitioner
Versus
Additional District Judge Court No.13 Lucknow And Others - Respondents
WRIT - A NO. - 1000035 OF 2014, WRIT - A NO. - 1000036 OF 2014.
Decided On : 04-07-2023

Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mohammad Aslam Khan.
For the Respondent: Apoorva Tewari, R.K. Sharma,Vivek Kumar.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 227 - U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972 - Petitions by tenant challenging order allowing applications under Order XV Rule 5 and rejecting tenant's application under Section 20(4) of the Act - Key principles concerning tenant's obligation to make timely rent deposits and the nature of tenancy in absence of written lease outlined. (Paras 11, 16, 17, 22)

(B) The court ruled the tenant failed to substantiate claims of composite tenancy or fulfill deposit requirements under applicable provisions. (Paras 11, 34)

Facts of the case:
Petitioner contested orders related to arrears and ejectment involving multiple shops under disputed tenancy after the demise of original tenant. Orders challenged focus on the rejection of tenant's application claiming composite tenancy and timely deposit of rent. (Paras 5, 6)

Findings of Court:
Tenant's application under Section 20(4) was not maintainable due to non-conformity with statutory requirements, impacting the first date of hearing determination. (Paras 34)

Issues: Determining if the application was valid under the respective legal provisions and whether the tenant fulfilled deposit obligations as required by law. (Paras 11, 34)

Ratio Decidendi: Court concluded that evidence and application did not satisfy statutory requirements for either Section 20(4) or Order XV Rule 5, rendering the decisions of lower courts correct. (Paras 28, 34)

Result: Petitions dismissed.

Table of Content
1. petitions filed under article 227. (Para 1 , 2)
2. background on landlord-tenant agreements. (Para 5 , 6)
3. arguments regarding lack of reasoning in orders. (Para 9 , 10 , 11)
4. reference to prior case law. (Para 12 , 14)
5. landlord's claims regarding composite tenancy. (Para 13 , 19 , 20)
6. discussion on application conformity with legal standards. (Para 21 , 22 , 28)
7. discretion in tenant applications under relevant provisions. (Para 25 , 29)
8. final determination of application validity. (Para 30 , 34)
9. conclusion: petitions dismissed. (Para 35)

JUDGMENT

Manish Mathur, J.

These petitions under Article 227 of the Constitution of India have been filed by tenant challenging order dated 19.04.2008 whereby applications under Order XV Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure have been allowed while rejecting application preferred by tenant under Section 20 (4) of U.P. Act No.XIII of 1972 in one of the cases. Revisional orders dated 20.01.2014 are also under challenge in both petitions.

2. Since both the said petitions have been consolidated and pertain to the same cause of action, they are being decided by means of a common judgment.

3. Heard. Mr. Mohd. Arif Khan, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. Mohd. Aslam Khan, learned counsel for petitioner and Mr. Anil Kumar Tewari, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. Vivek Kumar, learned counsel for private opposite parties no. 4 to 14.

4. Notices to opposite parties no.1 and 2 being merely proforma parties, are dispensed with.

5. Private opposite parties who are admittedly the landlords of premises in question had filed suit for arrears of rent and ejectment pertaining to the tenanted area situate in building bearing Municipal No.118/134, 9A Cantonment Road, Police Station Kaiserbagh, Lucknow. The aforesaid suits were registered as SCC Suits No.132 and 133 of 2007. It was stated that both the suits pertained to different shops but given in the tenancy of the defendants/petitioner. It was stated that originally Mohd. Anees, father of defendant was the tenant of shop in question and defendant/petitioner succeeded to the tenancy after demise of original tenant Mohd. Anees. Boundaries of the shop in question were indicated in plaint with the averment that rent of aforesaid two shops was Rs.245/- per month pertaining to suit premises which was subject matter of SCC Case No.132 of 2007 and Rs.335 per month pertaining to SCC Case No.133 of 2007.

6. Upon presentation of aforesaid two suits, summons were issued to defendant-petitioner on 26.10.2007 intimating the first date of hearing as 26.11.2007. Petitioner appeared on the said date where after power was filed on 10.01.2008 and written statement was filed on 03.04.2008 along with an application under Section 20 (4) of the Act of 1972. It is a relevant factor that the said application was filed by petitioner only in SCC Suit No.132 of 2007 with the plea that suit premises in both suits were one and under a composite tenancy and therefore a single application under Section 20 (4) of Act of 1972 was being filed indicating the admitted amount of rent as Rs.330/ per month. Interest of Rs.90/- with effect from July 2007 till March 2008 was also tendered. It was stated that the composite tenancy comprised one shop and two go-downs at a monthly rent of Rs.330/- per month in respect of which rent up-till June 2007 was already paid.

7. The opposite parties-landlords filed objections to the application but prior to that, application under Order XV Rule 5 of the Code was filed seeking striking off defence separately in both cases.

8. By means of impugned order, the applications under Order XV Rule 5 of the Code have been allowed and the application filed under Section 20 (4) of the Act of 1972 in SCC Suit No.132 of 2007 was rejected.

9. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that the applications under Order XV Rule 5 of the Code have been allowed without indicating any reasons for the same but only on the basis of submissions o