Manu Rishi Garg v. Agnivesh Garg

WPMS No.1059 of 2025 Hon’ble Rakesh Thapliyal, J. 1. Mr. Sagar Kothari, learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. Mr. Bhuwan Bhatt, learned counsel for the respondent. 3. The instant petition has been preferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by the petitioner challenging the impugned order dated 25.10.2024 passed by the Judge Small Cause Court/ Civil Judge Senior Division Dehradun in SCC Suit No. 05 of 2024, “Manu Rishi Garg versus Agnivesh Garg,” whereby the application moved by the petitioner, in the said suit being defendant under Order7 Rule11 of CPC, was rejected. In addition to this, the petitioner is also challenging the order dated 05.02.2025 passed in SCC Revision No.19 of 2024, whereby, the order rejecting the application moved under Order7 Rule11 CPC confirmed by dismissing the Revision. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the SCC suit filed by the respondent- petitioner is not maintainable in view of Section 33 read with Section 40 of Uttarakhand Tenancy Act, 2021 (hereinafter referred to as Act No.02 of 2021). 5. He also submits that this aspect that the SCC Suit filed by the plaintiff (owner of shop in question) is not maintainable has not been properly dealt with by both the Courts below. Apart from this he submits that the jurisdiction of the Small Cause Court Act with respect to the property in question is barred by the provisions of the Act No.02 of 2022 and this aspect has been completely overlooked in fact by both the Courts below and as such the impugned orders are liable to be quashed. He submits that the Small Causes Court has no jurisdiction to decide the dispute by virtue of the provisions of the Act No.02 of 2022. He submits that on harmonious reading of Section 21 and 40 of the Act, it is only the rent Court tenancy agreement with established under Section 33 of the Act No.02 of 2022 that can adjudicate the dispute between the landlord and the tenant. 6. On the other side, Mr. Bhuwan Bhatt, the counsel for the respondent submits that, in fact, there was no petitioner rather the tenancy agreement was with his father, who was given shop in question for a specific purpose on monthly rent to run a clinic, since the petitioner’s father was a Vaidh. Apart from this, he submits that the petitioner was a salaried employee in District Cooperative Bank and retired from his service in the year 2012-13 and since the petitioner’s father is no more, therefore, the petitioner is under legal obligation to give the possession of the shop in-question to the respondent but he unauthorisedly occupying the shop. 7. In response to this, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that even after the death of the petitioner’s father, the rent at the rate of Rs.75/- per month is being paid regularly by the petitioner to the respondent-defendant, who is accepting the rent, therefore, there is a relationship of the landlord and the tenant. 8. In response to this, Mr. Bhuwan Bhatt, learned counsel for the respondent seriously denied this fact that the respondent has received any rent from the petitioner. 9. This matter was listed yesterday and for in between petitioner resolving learned (tenant) and counsel for the petitioner was given time to get the instruction from his client within how much period he will vacate the shop in-question, and, furthermore, as to whether he is agreeable to increase the rent or not. Today, on instruction, Mr. Sagar Kothari, submits that his client has refused to give any consent either to vacate or to increase the rent and submits that he wants to contest the matter on merit. 10. Be that as it may, admittedly, the shop in question was never been given on rent to the petitioner as it was given to the petitioner’s father 60 years’ back, who was, by profession, was Vaidh and was running a clinic in the shop in question the dispute respondent (landlord) the shop in question the petitioner submits the petitioner was a and now after retirement the petitioner is not running any such clinic since his father is no more. Though this court gives an opportunity to vacate the shop within specified period by increasing the rent for resolving the dispute which the petitioner strictly refused and such a conduct of the petitioner appears to be nothing but to grab the shop in question. Undisputedly, the petitioner was a salaried employee in District Cooperative Bank retired in the year 2012 and since his father is no more, therefore, he has to handover the peaceful possession of respondent but today despite the opportunity given to the learned counsel for the petitioner to get the instruction as to how much time he want to vacate the shop in question, but surprisingly instead of getting positive instruction learned counsel petitioner want to contest matter on merit. 11. Undisputedly, the shop is not owned by the the respondent. petitioner rather owned by Furthermore, retired employee, retired from District Cooperative Bank and now the question is for what purposes he wants to retain the shop in question. Mr. Bhuwan Bhatt, learned counsel for the respondent, who is the owner of the shop in question placed before this court, certain photographs of the shop and submits that no such activities are going on rather a photostat machine has been put in the shop along with a scooty. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that the main intention of the petitioner is nothing but to grab the shop in question. I have seen the photographs and the same is placed on record from which it appears that a sign-board in the memory of petitioner’s father is installed in front of shop. Apart from this towards the rent, still the counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner want to contest on merit though yesterday both the counsels were directed to get instruction in relation to the actual rent of the shop in question and Mr. Bhuwan Bhatt, learned counsel for the respondent submits that as on date, the monthly rent of this shop is about 15,000/- per month. This suggestion was also given to the learned counsel for the petitioner whether he is ready to pay the monthly rent at the rate of Rs. 15,000/- per month, he again submits that the petitioner wants to contest the matter on merit. 12. After hearing the arguments as advanced by learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the order passed by the Court below I do not find any illegality and perversity in the order. The opportunity was given to the petitioner to vacate the shop in question but he submits that he wants to contest the case on merit though he knows it very well that the petitioner is not the owner of the shop and infact was given to the petitioner’s father at about 60 years’ back to run a clinic. He further knowingly wants to contest the case on merit though he was a salaried employee and have no any certificate to run a clinic. This attitude of the petitioner appears to be nothing but shows that he anyhow want to retain the shop. 13. In the interest of justice, this Court further gives time to get instruction in the matter so as to how much time the petitioner wants to vacate the shop in question and for this purpose the matter is again posted at 04:00 pm today. 14. Learned counsel for the petitioner got the instruction(s) from his client and submits that his client is ready to vacate the shop in-question, but for vacating the shop, he wants 05 years’ time. The period is completely unreasonable. 15. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that the respondent landlord of the shop in question is also running a shop in a rental accommodation where he has given undertaking to vacate that shop by 01.07.2026, and, therefore, the period, as sought for vacating the shop completely unreasonable. 16. I have also found submissions on the arguments as advanced by Mr. Bhuwan Bhatt, learned counsel for the respondent. In such an eventuality, since the petitioner also ready to vacate the shop but he wants 05 years’ time but this Court thinks that this period is completely unreasonable, therefore, in such an eventuality, this Court directs the petitioner to vacate the shop in question by the end of July 2026. He will give in question by the petitioner, an undertaking to this aspect before the concerned prescribed authority within 15 days. He will vacate the shop in question till end of July 2026 peacefully and hand over the peaceful possession to the respondent owner. It has also been informed that the petitioner is only paying Rs. 75/- per month as rent of the shop in question and this amount is really in a lower side. 17. Mr. Bhuwan Bhatt, learned counsel for the respondent apprise to this Court that the shop which he is running in a rental accommodation, the respondent is paying Rs.2000/- rent per month. 18. In such an eventuality, when this Court observes that the monthly rent which is being paid by the petitioner is in lower side, the monthly rent is also increased from Rs. 75/- to Rs. 1500/- per month and the petitioner will pay regularly monthly rent at the rate of Rs. 1500 per month till he vacates the shop in question. 19. He shall file an undertaking before the concerned prescribed authority within a period two weeks. 20. above, the wit petition is disposed of finally. Subject to the observations and directions as (Rakesh Thapliyal, J.) 16.04.2025 R.Bisht