High Court · 2025

1. Heard Sri Manish Tandon, learned counsel for the revision-petitioner and Sri Atul Dayal, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Ayush Khanna learned counsel for the respondents.

2.This revision-petition questions the judgment and decree passed by the Additional District Judge/Judge, Small Causes dated 03.09.2015 and 10.09.2015 decreeing the suit for ejectment and recovery of arrears of rent. As many as 8 points for determination were framed by the Judge, Small Causes and the crucial point qua rate of rent and default in payment of rent being issue no.6 has been unanswered and decided in favour of the respondents.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner Sri Tandon tried to assail the findings arrived at by the trial judge on the ground that there is a manifest error in arriving at such a finding that the rent was Rs.175 per month. He has also tried to question the findings as to the statutory benefit allowed to the tenant-respondent vide point no.6 with a plea that the trial court manifestly erred in considering 22.12.2018 to be the first date of hearing.

4. Per contra, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the respondents has defended all the findings returned by the trial court in his favour for the reasons assigned therein.

5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the judgment of the Judge, Small Causes I find the Court has appreciated the oral testimony of PW-1 in which during cross examination he admitted that his mother had purchased the house sometimes in 1980 or 1981 and he was not sure that the rent was enhanced from Rs.50/- to Rs.100/- and he also admitted that for a period running from 17.08.1993 to 16.09.1994 Rs.1085/- was paid as rent. Acknowledgement of this document is paper no.30-C has been denied by the witness himself and so also that rent of the shop was Rs.1560/- for the period between 17.12.1994 and 17.01.1996. The court therefore held that this showed that the rent of the shop was not Rs.1800/- as claimed by the plaintiff in his plaint. The Court further referred to the statement of this witness during cross-examination that there was an agreement reached by Panch between Padma Devi and Kishore Kumar on 06.03.1997 whereby the rate of rent was enhanced from Rs.120/- to 175/-. He claimed to be of 40 years of age in 1997 but showed his ignorance as to the status of Asharfi Lal Shukla as President of of Vyapar Mandal.

6. In such circumstances, Court relied upon paper no.30- C/46 the judgment of the Panch as Exhibit-A-6 of Case No.234 of 2007 (Smt. Padma Devi v. Kishore Kumar Agarwal) filed by Padma Devi herself in which she admitted that when she purchased the property, the rent was no enhanced. She claimed that rent of the property was Rs.50/- on 17.03.1883 which later on got increased to Rs.100/- and then to Rs.120/- and the award by the Panch discussed that the applicant-vadini could nor prove that there was any area in front of the shop. The Court records further that in the award it has come on Page-5 that the rent was enhanced from Rs.120/- to Rs.175/- and this award was passed by the President, Vyapar Mandal, Mr. Asharfi Lal Shukla on 16.01.1997 copy whereof was also sent to the Civil Judge (Junior Division). The court also recorded that PW-1 admitted in his testimony that he has not filed any document in respect of the pleadings that the rent was Rs.1800/-. Thus the Court reached finally to the conclusion that the rent was Rs.175/- per month qua the shop in question.

7. In view of above discussions I do not find there to be any perversity in the findings returned by the Judge, Small Causes qua monthly rent of demised premise to be Rs.175/-. Upon a pointed query being made, learned counsel for the petitioner also could not demonstrate from any document filed with petition that the finding was perverse or that the documents referred too were wrongly appreciated.

8. In so far as the finding on the point of statutory benefit vide point no.6 is concerned the Court has decided the said issue on the basis of the findings returned on point no.5 which was qua sufficiency of deposit made under Order 15 Rule 5 CPC. The court held that since the rate of rent was Rs.175/- per month as determined vide point no.2, the tenant upon further appearing in the case on the very first date submitted the tender bearing paper no.22-C for a sum of Rs.4110/- which amounted to a rent of Rs.2100/- for a period from 17.12.2011 to 16.12.2012 with further interest of Rs.2000/- additionally that was deposited.

9. The Court on the question of deposit of taxes referred to the award of the Panch, Vyapar Mandal in Case No.234 of 2007 in which it was admitted by Padma Devi-landlord that when the rent was raised from Rs.120/- to Rs.175/- per month included the taxes. The court further proceeded to hold that if the written statement was filed on 08.08.2013 it would be taken to be the date of first hearing because the Court would be applying its mind on merits whereas the deposit was made under Order 15 Rule 5 on 28.02.2013 itself. I again do not find any perversity in the above finding.

10. In view of the fact that the rent was determined to be Rs.175 per month including taxes, the court rightly concluded that there was deposit as per Section 20(4) of Act No.13 of 1972 to accord statutory benefit to the tenant respondents.

11. This revision-petition is devoid of merits and is, accordingly, dismissed. Order Date :- 6.3.2025 Deepika DEEPIKA SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

1. Heard Sri Manish Tandon, learned counsel for the revision-petitioner and Sri Atul Dayal, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Ayush Khanna learned counsel for the respondents.

2.This revision-petition questions the judgment and decree passed by the Additional District Judge/Judge, Small Causes dated 03.09.2015 and 10.09.2015 decreeing the suit for ejectment and recovery of arrears of rent. As many as 8 points for determination were framed by the Judge, Small Causes and the crucial point qua rate of rent and default in payment of rent being issue no.6 has been unanswered and decided in favour of the respondents.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner Sri Tandon tried to assail the findings arrived at by the trial judge on the ground that there is a manifest error in arriving at such a finding that the rent was Rs.175 per month. He has also tried to question the findings as to the statutory benefit allowed to the tenant-respondent vide point no.6 with a plea that the trial court manifestly erred in considering 22.12.2018 to be the first date of hearing.

4. Per contra, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the respondents has defended all the findings returned by the trial court in his favour for the reasons assigned therein.

5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the judgment of the Judge, Small Causes I find the Court has appreciated the oral testimony of PW-1 in which during cross examination he admitted that his mother had purchased the house sometimes in 1980 or 1981 and he was not sure that the rent was enhanced from Rs.50/- to Rs.100/- and he also admitted that for a period running from 17.08.1993 to 16.09.1994 Rs.1085/- was paid as rent. Acknowledgement of this document is paper no.30-C has been denied by the witness himself and so also that rent of the shop was Rs.1560/- for the period between 17.12.1994 and 17.01.1996. The court therefore held that this showed that the rent of the shop was not Rs.1800/- as claimed by the plaintiff in his plaint. The Court further referred to the statement of this witness during cross-examination that there was an agreement reached by Panch between Padma Devi and Kishore Kumar on 06.03.1997 whereby the rate of rent was enhanced from Rs.120/- to 175/-. He claimed to be of 40 years of age in 1997 but showed his ignorance as to the status of Asharfi Lal Shukla as President of of Vyapar Mandal.

6. In such circumstances, Court relied upon paper no.30- C/46 the judgment of the Panch as Exhibit-A-6 of Case No.234 of 2007 (Smt. Padma Devi v. Kishore Kumar Agarwal) filed by Padma Devi herself in which she admitted that when she purchased the property, the rent was no enhanced. She claimed that rent of the property was Rs.50/- on 17.03.1883 which later on got increased to Rs.100/- and then to Rs.120/- and the award by the Panch discussed that the applicant-vadini could nor prove that there was any area in front of the shop. The Court records further that in the award it has come on Page-5 that the rent was enhanced from Rs.120/- to Rs.175/- and this award was passed by the President, Vyapar Mandal, Mr. Asharfi Lal Shukla on 16.01.1997 copy whereof was also sent to the Civil Judge (Junior Division). The court also recorded that PW-1 admitted in his testimony that he has not filed any document in respect of the pleadings that the rent was Rs.1800/-. Thus the Court reached finally to the conclusion that the rent was Rs.175/- per month qua the shop in question.

7. In view of above discussions I do not find there to be any perversity in the findings returned by the Judge, Small Causes qua monthly rent of demised premise to be Rs.175/-. Upon a pointed query being made, learned counsel for the petitioner also could not demonstrate from any document filed with petition that the finding was perverse or that the documents referred too were wrongly appreciated.

8. In so far as the finding on the point of statutory benefit vide point no.6 is concerned the Court has decided the said issue on the basis of the findings returned on point no.5 which was qua sufficiency of deposit made under Order 15 Rule 5 CPC. The court held that since the rate of rent was Rs.175/- per month as determined vide point no.2, the tenant upon further appearing in the case on the very first date submitted the tender bearing paper no.22-C for a sum of Rs.4110/- which amounted to a rent of Rs.2100/- for a period from 17.12.2011 to 16.12.2012 with further interest of Rs.2000/- additionally that was deposited.

9. The Court on the question of deposit of taxes referred to the award of the Panch, Vyapar Mandal in Case No.234 of 2007 in which it was admitted by Padma Devi-landlord that when the rent was raised from Rs.120/- to Rs.175/- per month included the taxes. The court further proceeded to hold that if the written statement was filed on 08.08.2013 it would be taken to be the date of first hearing because the Court would be applying its mind on merits whereas the deposit was made under Order 15 Rule 5 on 28.02.2013 itself. I again do not find any perversity in the above finding.

10. In view of the fact that the rent was determined to be Rs.175 per month including taxes, the court rightly concluded that there was deposit as per Section 20(4) of Act No.13 of 1972 to accord statutory benefit to the tenant respondents.

11. This revision-petition is devoid of merits and is, accordingly, dismissed. Order Date :- 6.3.2025 Deepika DEEPIKA SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad