Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Hon'ble Ajit Kumar,J.
Azad Ahirwar – Appellant
Versus
Jai Kumar – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Ajit Kumar, J.
1. Heard Sri Achyut Jee, learned counsel for the petitioner.
2. By means of present petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution, petitioner has questioned the judgment and decree passed by the Judge Small Causes dated 15.12.2021 in SCC Case No. 24 of 2013 directing for eviction of the petitioner from the demised premises and also for arrears of rent and damages. The said order having been unsuccessfully challenged in revision. The final judgment passed in revision dated 2nd November, 2024 in SCC Revision No. 45 of 2021 is also under challenge before this Court.
3. The main plank of arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner is that findings returned qua issue no. 2 as to the applicability of Act no. 13 of 1972 is against evidence on record and hence perverse. It is also submitted that on the question of deposit under Section 30 that was made by the petitioner under Act No. 13 of 1972 has been negatived only on the ground that Rule 21(5) of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Rules, 1972 was not followed. This According to learned counsel for the petitioner as far issue regarding rent deposited und
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.
A tenant's vague denial of allegations regarding property age does not meet the burden of proof required to contest eviction under the applicable laws.
Admissions in pleadings regarding the construction date of a building preclude the applicability of the U.P. Urban Buildings Act, leading to lawful eviction of the tenant.
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.
The failure to consider crucial evidence and make specific findings can render a judgment perverse and warrant its quashing.
The burden of proof lies with the petitioners to establish the non-applicability of the Uttar Pradesh Act No.13 of 1972, and estoppel does not apply against statutory provisions.
Strict compliance with statutory provisions for rent deposits is mandatory; failure to comply invalidates the deposit and can lead to eviction.
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....
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
