Back
SARAL SRIVASTAVA
Dinkar Verma Alias Jay Singh – Appellant
Versus
Rajan Kumar Gupta – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Hon'ble Saral Srivastava, J.-Heard Sri Saurabh Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri Jayant Kumar, learned counsel for the respondents.
2. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner challenging the judgment and decree dated 24.10.2016 passed by the Judge, Small Causes Court, Kanpur Nagar in SCC suit No. 43 of 2013 and the judgment and decree dated 15.10.2022 passed by the Additional District Judge, Court No. 26, Kanpur Nagar in SCC revision No. 29 of 2017 whereby the revisional Court has dismissed the revision of the petitioner-tenant.
3. The respondents-landlord instituted SCC suit No. 43 of 2013 contending inter alia that the petitioner is the tenant of the suit premises described in the plaint at Rs. 300/- per month plus 18% interest. It is alleged that the petitioner did not pay the rent from 1.12.2006 to 31.12.2012. The respondent landlord stated that he is not claiming the time-barred rent and is claiming only the rent from the date of the institution of the suit.
4. The said suit was contested by the petitioner-tenant by filing a written statement contending inter alia that when the respondents-landl
Compliance with statutory requirements for rent deposit is mandatory for tenants to avoid eviction under the Uttar Pradesh Urban Building Act.
Strict compliance with statutory provisions for rent deposits is mandatory; failure to comply invalidates the deposit and can lead to eviction.
Section 30 of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 cannot be invoked for rent deposits once an eviction suit is pending, requiring adherence to procedural rules of the ongoing legal proceedings.
Tenants cannot be evicted for non-payment of rent if they have made proper deposits under legal requirements, and landlords had knowledge of these deposits.
Sufficient deposits under Section 20(4) allow a tenant to maintain defense against eviction; compliance with procedural requirements of Order 15 Rule 5 can be rectified without voiding statutory prot....
Point of Law : The provisions under Order XV Rule 5(2) provides a locus poenitentiae to the defaulting tenant to make a representation, which must be made within ten days of the first hearing or with....
The interpretation of 'first hearing' under Section 20(4) of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Building Act is critical in determining tenant rights, emphasizing the need for evidence regarding the nature of p....
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....
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
