NARENDRA SHARMA Vs. VAISHYA KUMAR SABHA (REGD ) KANKHAL HARDWAR
LAWS(UTN)-2012-9-86
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
Decided on September 06,2012

NARENDRA SHARMA Appellant
VERSUS
Vaishya Kumar Sabha (Regd ) Kankhal Hardwar Respondents

JUDGEMENT

B.S.VERMA, J. - (1.) HEARD Ms. Sonam Nagrath, learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.
(2.) BY means of this writ petition, the petitioner has sought a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the judgment and decree dated 21.7.2001 passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division)/Judge, Small Cause Court Haridwar (for short the J.S.C.C.) in S.C.C. Suit No. 13 of 1999, whereby the suit of the plaintiff -respondent herein was decreed for recovery of rent and damages as well as for eviction of the petitioner from the disputed property. The petitioner has also assailed the judgment and order dated 19 -5 -2012, passed by the learned Additional District Judge/III F.T.C. Haridwar in S.C.C. Revision No. 28 of 2001, Narendra Kumar Sharma Vs. Vaishya Kumar Sabha, whereby the revision of the petitioner has been dismissed.
(3.) BRIEF facts giving rise to the present writ petition are that the plaintiff -respondent filed S.C.C. Suit against the petitioner -defendant for recovery of rent and damages and for eviction of the defendant on the ground that the plaintiff is a public charitable and religious institution and is registered society under the Societies Registration Act having is head office at Jwalapur Road, Kankhal, district Haridwar; that the provisions of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 are not applicable to the plaintiff institution; that the defendant is the tenant of the plaintiff @ Rs. 7/ - per month and the tenancy of the defendant is month to month. The defendant defaulted in payment of rent from 1.5.1989 to 30 -11 -1998. The plaintiff demanded the rent from the defendant many a times but to no avail. Ultimately the plaintiff sent a registered notice to the defendant on 9.12.1998 and determined the tenancy of the defendant -petitioner and demanded arrears of rent but neither the rent was paid nor the defendant vacated the property in dispute. Hence the suit has been filed claiming the rent for a period of three years from 14 -1 -1996 to 13 -1 -1999 amounting to Rs. 252/ - and for damages for illegal use and occupation of the property in dispute pendente lite and future @ Rs. 200/ - per month. The defendant -petitioner resisted the suit by filing his written statement and admitted the plaintiff as landlord, but has denied other allegations made in the plaint on the ground that no cause of action arose to the plaintiff to file the suit and the suit is not maintainable. It was alleged that the plaintiff -institution is a registered society but it is not a public and charitable institution and the provisions of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 are fully applicable to the property in dispute. It has been pleaded that the plaintiff does not spend the income from the rent on the maintenance of disputed property and other property and also not for any charitable and public purpose. The defendant has admitted his tenancy on monthly rent of Rs. 7/ -. It has been pleaded that the defendant wants to pay the rent to the plaintiff but the plaintiff did not accept the same and consequently, the defendant sent the rent through money order on 14.12.1998 but the same was refused to be accepted by the plaintiff -respondent. Therefore, the defendant deposited the rent under Section 30 of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 in the court of Civil Judge (Junior Division) Haridwar on 1 -2 -1999. It has also been pleaded that no default has been committed in payment of rent by the defendant. It has been denied that the defendant refused to receive the notice dated 14 -12 -1998 and alleged that no notice was received, therefore, there is no question of refusal of notice by the defendant.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.