High Court · 2025

1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Deepanshu Dass, learned Counsel for the opposite party no.2. No one appears on behalf of opposite parties no.3 and 4 despite service of notice.

2. The present petition has been filed challenging a judgment and order dated 19.03.2021 passed by the revisional court whereby the judgment and decree dated 30.07.2018 was set aside and the matter was remanded for decision afresh.

3. The facts in brief are that the petitioner is the owner of the property in question in which the respondent is a tenant on monthly rent of Rs.200/- per month. The said rent was not paid from 01.01.1985 despite demands. It is stated that the petitioner had sent a legal notice on 09.04.2004, terminating the tenancy and demanding the arrears of rent. The said notice was served on 19.04.2004 and despite service of notice, neither the rent was paid nor the premises was vacant. It was specifically stated that the plaintiff claiming rent only for a term of three years as the rent prior to the said period had become time barred. It was also stated that the petitioner-plaintiff had purchased the property on 22.02.2001 from the erstwhile landlord and in the sale deed, the recovery of rent was also transferred in favour of the petitioner. A defence was taken by the respondent that the petitioner was entitled to claim rent only for 22.02.2001, the date from which the property was purchased by the petitioner herein. It was also denied that the boundaries of the premises have been wrongly shown in the plaint. In the plaint, it was stated that the respondents have not paid the rent from 01.01.1985. The rent from 01.01.1985 upto 19.05.2004 worked out to Rs.46337/-, however, the rent for the period of three years worked out to Rs.7,200/- and damages were assessed at Rs.3,000/- and the petitioner was entitled for rent during the pendency of the suit.

4. In defence, the arrears of rent were denied on the ground that an agreement to sale was executed in between the respondent and the erstwhile landlord and certain amounts were paid as advance, which was bound to be adjusted. It also bears from the record that in pursuance to an agreement to sale executed by the erstwhile landlord in favour of the respondents on 07.02.1989, a suit was filed for specific performance being Suit No.282 of 1994 which was decreed in favour of the respondents. Against which, an appeal was preferred by the erstwhile landlord, which was partly allowed. The relief for specific performance was denied, however, directions were issued for refund of Rs.40,000/- taken as advance at the time of execution of the agreement to sale. It was also claimed by the respondent that an amount of Rs.36,600/- was paid through cheque on 17.05.2004 thus it was claimed that the respondent was entitled for the set off an amount of Rs.40,000/- and Rs.36,600/-, which if calculated would in excess of the amount due. The trial court had rejected the said contention on the ground that in terms of the mandate of Section 20(4) of the U.P. Act No.13 of 1972, it was incumbent to deposit the entire amount for claiming the benefit and for escaping the decree of eviction, however, as the entire amounts were not deposited, the benefit could not be granted. The revisional court was of the view that the trial court had not considered the two amounts allegedly paid by the respondents and thus the matter was remanded.

5. Challenging the said order of remand, the Counsel for the petitioner argues that for claiming the benefit of Section 20(4), it is incumbent that on the first hearing of the suit, the tenant unconditionally paid the entire amount of rent and damages for use and occupation of the building together with the interest thereon @ 9% per annum and the landlords' costs of the suit in respect thereof, after deducting therefrom any amount already deposited by the tenant under Section 30(1) of the Act and in case, such a condition is fulfilled, it is the discretion of the court to avoid passing the decree of eviction.

6. In the present case, the amount paid by the tenant and the benefit claimed was neither the amount deposited in terms of the mandate of Section 20(4) nor was it deposited under Section 30(1) of the Act. In the absence of there being any deposit as prescribed under Section 20(4), the benefit could not be given to the tenant and was rightly denied by the JSC Court. The revisional court has erred in taking into account the mandate of Section 20(4), which is clear in its term. There being no deposits on the first hearing under Section 30(1), the tenant had not given the benefit of any deposit allegedly paid to the erstwhile landlord or subsequently to the present landlord.

7. The Counsel for the petitioner states that the respondents are not residing as is evident from the electricity bills which shows zero meter reading.

8. In view of above, the order impugned dated 19.03.2021 cannot be sustained and is set aside accordingly. The writ petition is allowed.

9. The Counsel for the respondents prays that some reasonable time may be granted to vacate the premise in question as the respondent is an old lady and is not even being taken care of by her children.

10. Without going into the merits of the said contention, the decree dated 30.07.2018 passed by the JSC Court is affirmed.

11. However, the respondent no.2 is granted one year time to vacate the premise subject to filing an undertaking in the form of an affidavit that she will vacate the premise in question on or before 30.06.2026 and handover the actual and physical possession to the landlord within two weeks from today.

12. In case, the undertaking is not filed within two weeks from today, the petitioner would be at liberty to execute the decree forthwith.

13. Any objection on behalf of the respondents no.3 and 4 against the execution of the decree shall not be entertained. Order Date :- 23.7.2025 akverma ASHOK KUMAR VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Deepanshu Dass, learned Counsel for the opposite party no.2. No one appears on behalf of opposite parties no.3 and 4 despite service of notice.

2. The present petition has been filed challenging a judgment and order dated 19.03.2021 passed by the revisional court whereby the judgment and decree dated 30.07.2018 was set aside and the matter was remanded for decision afresh.

3. The facts in brief are that the petitioner is the owner of the property in question in which the respondent is a tenant on monthly rent of Rs.200/- per month. The said rent was not paid from 01.01.1985 despite demands. It is stated that the petitioner had sent a legal notice on 09.04.2004, terminating the tenancy and demanding the arrears of rent. The said notice was served on 19.04.2004 and despite service of notice, neither the rent was paid nor the premises was vacant. It was specifically stated that the plaintiff claiming rent only for a term of three years as the rent prior to the said period had become time barred. It was also stated that the petitioner-plaintiff had purchased the property on 22.02.2001 from the erstwhile landlord and in the sale deed, the recovery of rent was also transferred in favour of the petitioner. A defence was taken by the respondent that the petitioner was entitled to claim rent only for 22.02.2001, the date from which the property was purchased by the petitioner herein. It was also denied that the boundaries of the premises have been wrongly shown in the plaint. In the plaint, it was stated that the respondents have not paid the rent from 01.01.1985. The rent from 01.01.1985 upto 19.05.2004 worked out to Rs.46337/-, however, the rent for the period of three years worked out to Rs.7,200/- and damages were assessed at Rs.3,000/- and the petitioner was entitled for rent during the pendency of the suit.

4. In defence, the arrears of rent were denied on the ground that an agreement to sale was executed in between the respondent and the erstwhile landlord and certain amounts were paid as advance, which was bound to be adjusted. It also bears from the record that in pursuance to an agreement to sale executed by the erstwhile landlord in favour of the respondents on 07.02.1989, a suit was filed for specific performance being Suit No.282 of 1994 which was decreed in favour of the respondents. Against which, an appeal was preferred by the erstwhile landlord, which was partly allowed. The relief for specific performance was denied, however, directions were issued for refund of Rs.40,000/- taken as advance at the time of execution of the agreement to sale. It was also claimed by the respondent that an amount of Rs.36,600/- was paid through cheque on 17.05.2004 thus it was claimed that the respondent was entitled for the set off an amount of Rs.40,000/- and Rs.36,600/-, which if calculated would in excess of the amount due. The trial court had rejected the said contention on the ground that in terms of the mandate of Section 20(4) of the U.P. Act No.13 of 1972, it was incumbent to deposit the entire amount for claiming the benefit and for escaping the decree of eviction, however, as the entire amounts were not deposited, the benefit could not be granted. The revisional court was of the view that the trial court had not considered the two amounts allegedly paid by the respondents and thus the matter was remanded.

5. Challenging the said order of remand, the Counsel for the petitioner argues that for claiming the benefit of Section 20(4), it is incumbent that on the first hearing of the suit, the tenant unconditionally paid the entire amount of rent and damages for use and occupation of the building together with the interest thereon @ 9% per annum and the landlords' costs of the suit in respect thereof, after deducting therefrom any amount already deposited by the tenant under Section 30(1) of the Act and in case, such a condition is fulfilled, it is the discretion of the court to avoid passing the decree of eviction.

6. In the present case, the amount paid by the tenant and the benefit claimed was neither the amount deposited in terms of the mandate of Section 20(4) nor was it deposited under Section 30(1) of the Act. In the absence of there being any deposit as prescribed under Section 20(4), the benefit could not be given to the tenant and was rightly denied by the JSC Court. The revisional court has erred in taking into account the mandate of Section 20(4), which is clear in its term. There being no deposits on the first hearing under Section 30(1), the tenant had not given the benefit of any deposit allegedly paid to the erstwhile landlord or subsequently to the present landlord.

7. The Counsel for the petitioner states that the respondents are not residing as is evident from the electricity bills which shows zero meter reading.

8. In view of above, the order impugned dated 19.03.2021 cannot be sustained and is set aside accordingly. The writ petition is allowed.

9. The Counsel for the respondents prays that some reasonable time may be granted to vacate the premise in question as the respondent is an old lady and is not even being taken care of by her children.

10. Without going into the merits of the said contention, the decree dated 30.07.2018 passed by the JSC Court is affirmed.

11. However, the respondent no.2 is granted one year time to vacate the premise subject to filing an undertaking in the form of an affidavit that she will vacate the premise in question on or before 30.06.2026 and handover the actual and physical possession to the landlord within two weeks from today.

12. In case, the undertaking is not filed within two weeks from today, the petitioner would be at liberty to execute the decree forthwith.

13. Any objection on behalf of the respondents no.3 and 4 against the execution of the decree shall not be entertained. Order Date :- 23.7.2025 akverma ASHOK KUMAR VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench