TIKAMCHAND SINDHI AND ANOTHER Vs. IVTH ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, AGRA AND OTHERS
LAWS(ALL)-1999-12-158
HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Decided on December 22,1999

Tikamchand Sindhi And Another Appellant
VERSUS
Ivth Additional District Judge, Agra And Others Respondents

JUDGEMENT

Sudhir Narain, J. - (1.) THIS writ petition is directed against the order of the Judge, Small Causes Court - -Respondent No. 2, dated. 16.1.1999 decreeing the suit for recovery of arrears of rent and ejectment and the order of the Revisional Court dated 14.12.1999 dismissing the revision against the aforesaid order. Briefly stated, the facts are that a suit was filed for the recovery of arrears of rent and ejectment on the ground of default against the petitioners. The petitioners contested the suit. The trial Court found that the petitioners had committed default in payment of arrear of rent and also found that they had sub -let the accommodation and on these findings the suit was decreed. The petitioners preferred a revision which has been dismissed by Respondent No. 1 on 14.12.1999. These orders have been challenged in the instant petition.
(2.) I have heard Sri B.D. Mandhyan, learned Counsel for the petitioners who contended that the petitioner has deposited the rent under Section 20(4) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 (in short the Act). The Courts below have considered this aspect. It has been found that the petitioners did not deposit the entire amount including the costs of the suit and, therefore, they were not entitled to the benefit of Section 20(4) of the Act. This finding does not suffer from any manifest illegality. It is next contended that the suit was not maintainable at the instance of the plaintiff. The Courts below have recorded finding that the plaintiff was entitled to file a suit and a notice sent by the predecessor -in -interest was effective and can be relied upon by the plaintiff.
(3.) I do not find any manifest illegality in the impugned orders. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. In the end, learned Counsel for the petitioners prayed that some time may be granted to the petitioners to vacate the disputed premises. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case the petitioners are granted six months' time to vacate the disputed premises provided they give an undertaking on affidavit before the Prescribed Authority within two weeks from today that they will vacate the disputed premises within the time granted by this Court and would hand over its peaceful possession to the landlord -respondents.;


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