ANIL KUMAR AGRAWAL Vs. SAROJ JAIN
LAWS(ALL)-2019-7-38
HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Decided on
July 03,2019
ANIL KUMAR AGRAWAL
Appellant
VERSUS
SAROJ JAIN
Respondents
Referred Judgements :-
SHARIF VS. SURESH CHAND AND ORS [REFERRED TO]ROOP BASANT VS. DURGA PRASAD & ANR. [REFERRED TO]
MOHAMMAD RAMZAN KHAN VS. KHUBIKHAN [REFERRED TO]
MOHD. ISLAM VS. FAQUIR MOHAMMAD [REFERRED TO]
MAMTA SHARMA VS. HARI SHANKAR SRIVASTAVA AND ORS. [REFERRED TO]
PURSHOTTAM VS. SPECIAL ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE,MATHURA AND ORS. [REFERRED TO]
MT. SHIKHANI VS. BISHAMBHAR NATH [REFERRED TO]
KEDARNATH VS. MOHAN KESARWARI [REFERRED TO]
KRISHAN KUMAR VS. HAKIM MOHAMMA [REFERRED TO]
MOHD YASIN VS. JAI PRAKASH [REFERRED TO]
RAM CHANDRA DECEASED LRS VS. IXTH ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE VARANASI [REFERRED TO]
SAGIR KHAN VS. D J FARRUKHABAD [REFERRED TO]
MOHAMMAD NASEM VS. THIRD ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE FAIZABAD [REFERRED TO]
BEENA KHARE VS. VIIITH ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE ALLAHABAD [REFERRED TO]
KHETRA DOLAI VS. MOHAN BISSOYI [REFERRED TO]
DHANNA VS. ARJUN LAL [REFERRED TO]
MURARI LAL VS. MOHAMMAD YASIN [REFERRED TO]
JAGDAMBA PRASAD VS. RAM DAS SINGH [REFERRED TO]
KRISHNA CHANDRA SETH VS. DR. K.P. AGARWAL AND ANR. [REFERRED TO]
VEMBU AMMAL VS. ESAKKIA PILLAI [REFERRED TO]
SARDAR BASANT SINGH VS. SARDAR SATNAM SINGH [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
Surya Prakash Kesarwani, J. -
(1.)Heard Sri K.K. Arora learned counsel for the judgment debtor-revisionist and Sri Rakesh Pande, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Prashant Rai, learned counsel for the decree holder - respondent.
(2.)Briefly stated facts of the present case are that undisputedly the decree holder-respondent is the owner and landlord of House No. C-106, Gangapur Awas Vikas Colony, Civil Lines, Rampur. The decree holder-respondent is residing in that house. She had let out the First Floor portion of the aforesaid house on 1.1.2009 to the revisionist-judgment debtor for 11 months on a monthly rent of Rs.7,100/-, under an unregistered rent agreement dated 1.1.2009. The aforesaid house was constructed in the year 1985 and as such the provision of U.P. Act No.13 of 1972 are not applicable.
(3.)After expiry of 11 months the tenancy was continued to be renewed after 11 months. According to the decree holder-respondent, the judgment debtor-revisionist lastly paid the rent for the month of April 2016 and thereafter when the rent became due he did not pay it. Therefore, by notice dated 5.5.2017 under Section 106 of the Transfer of the Property Act 1882, sent by registered post by decree holder-respondent determined the tenancy of the judgment debtor-revisionist and the arrears of rent were demanded. According to the decree holder-respondent the notice was not complied with by the judgment debtor-revisionist despite service, therefore, she filed JSCC Case No.05 of 2017, before the Judge Small Cause Court, Rampur. Several times summons were sent by registered post and also through process server to the judgment debtor-revisionist but he had not appeared. Therefore, the Court below proceeded ex parte after holding the service of notice upon the judgment debtor-revisionist to be sufficient. The ex-parte judgment and decree was passed on 12.2.2018.
(2.)Briefly stated facts of the present case are that undisputedly the decree holder-respondent is the owner and landlord of House No. C-106, Gangapur Awas Vikas Colony, Civil Lines, Rampur. The decree holder-respondent is residing in that house. She had let out the First Floor portion of the aforesaid house on 1.1.2009 to the revisionist-judgment debtor for 11 months on a monthly rent of Rs.7,100/-, under an unregistered rent agreement dated 1.1.2009. The aforesaid house was constructed in the year 1985 and as such the provision of U.P. Act No.13 of 1972 are not applicable.
(3.)After expiry of 11 months the tenancy was continued to be renewed after 11 months. According to the decree holder-respondent, the judgment debtor-revisionist lastly paid the rent for the month of April 2016 and thereafter when the rent became due he did not pay it. Therefore, by notice dated 5.5.2017 under Section 106 of the Transfer of the Property Act 1882, sent by registered post by decree holder-respondent determined the tenancy of the judgment debtor-revisionist and the arrears of rent were demanded. According to the decree holder-respondent the notice was not complied with by the judgment debtor-revisionist despite service, therefore, she filed JSCC Case No.05 of 2017, before the Judge Small Cause Court, Rampur. Several times summons were sent by registered post and also through process server to the judgment debtor-revisionist but he had not appeared. Therefore, the Court below proceeded ex parte after holding the service of notice upon the judgment debtor-revisionist to be sufficient. The ex-parte judgment and decree was passed on 12.2.2018.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.