Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
YOGENDRA KUMAR SRIVASTAVA
Fayyazuddin – Appellant
Versus
Prashant Kumar Singh – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
YOGENDRA KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J.
Heard Sri Shashi Kant Shukla, learned Senior Counsel appearing along with Sri Digvijay Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Tarun Agrawal, learned Senior Counsel appearing along with Ms. Sushmita Mukherjee and Sri Abhijeet Mukherji, counsel for the respondents.
2. The present petition has been instituted by the tenant under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing the judgment and decree dated 02.03.2019 passed by the Judge, Small Causes Court, Bijnor in SCC Suit No.35 of 2012, whereby the suit instituted by the respondent-landlords for eviction, recovery of arrears of rent and damages came to be decreed, as well as the judgment and order dated 28.03.2026 passed by the revisional court in SCC Revision No.11 of 2019 affirming the same.
3. The disputed premises, namely Haveli No.293 comprising two eastern-facing rooms, one southern-facing room together with a verandah, inner and outer courtyards and a boundary wall situated at Kasba Haldaur, District Bijnor, was admittedly let out to the petitioner-tenant on 01.12.1962 by the erstwhile owner, late Kunwar Shiv Mahendra Kumar Singh. The tenancy was pleaded to be a month-to-mon
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.
The tenant's deposit under Section 20(4) must reflect the court-determined rent and damages, not merely the landlord's claims, to qualify for statutory protection against eviction.
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....
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.
Compliance with statutory requirements for rent deposit is mandatory for tenants to avoid eviction under the Uttar Pradesh Urban Building Act.
Court cannot deny protection to tenant only on the ground that plea taken by him with regard to rate of rent was found incorrect.
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.
The judgment emphasized the mandatory nature of the provisions of the Rent Control Act and the requirement for the tenant to offer rent to the landlord before depositing it in Court.
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
