Court No. - 7 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 43143 of 2000 Petitioner :- Bal Krishna Kapoor Respondent :- Sri Deepak Saxena Petitioner Counsel :- U.N.Sharma Respondent Counsel :- V.K. Rai,S.C. Hon'ble Devendra Pratap Singh,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, but none appears for the
respondent even in the revised list.
This petition by the tenant is directed against concurrent orders dated
26th February 2000 and 23rd September 2000 by which the suit of the
respondent landlord for arrears of rent and eviction has been decreed
by both the courts below.
The respondent landlord instituted SCC Suit No.157 of 1993 against
the petitioner inter alia with the allegation that he had purchased the
disputed premises on 10th of August 1989 through a registered sale
deed wherein the petitioner was a sitting tenant at Rs.25/- per month,
but despite knowledge and notice, he defaulted in payment of rent and
also made material alterations leading to disfigurement of the building
and diminishing its value. It was further asserted that the respondent
tenant had bought a vacant piece of land upon which a building has
been built and occupied and therefore, the petitioner was liable for
eviction as despite notice neither rent was tendered nor paid.
The petitioner tenant contested the suit inter alia alleging in the written
statement that he had tendered rent to the erstwhile landlord as he
was not informed about the sale deed and after coming to know about
it, he had also tendered rent to the plaintiff respondent who also
refused and therefore he started depositing the rent under Section 30
of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’). It was
further stated that no material alteration has been made and that the
piece of land purchased by him was settled in favour of his son who
has built a house thereon.
The trial court framed three issues with regard to default, material
alternation and whether the petitioner was entitled to benefit of Section
21 (4) of the Act. After recording findings, decreed the suit which has
been upheld.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that there was no default
in payment of rent as the deposit was made under Section 30 of the
Act. Except for the bald argument, learned counsel for the petitioner
has failed to point out that the finding of fact recorded by both the
courts below was vitiated in any account. Both the courts below have
held that despite knowledge, rent was never tendered to the plaintiff
respondent and the deposit under Section 30 of the Act was void and it
went on to hold that assuming that the disputed rent was made, the
petitioner was not entitled to Section 20 (4) of the Act, in view of the
fact that he had acquired a house.
Lastly it is alleged that the said house was built by his son and
therefore the courts below were wrong in denying the benefit of
Section 20 (4) of the Act. It is not denied even before this Court that
the land over which the building was erected, was purchased by the
petitioner out of his money and this finding has been recorded by both
the courts below also. Learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to
show any document that he had relinquished his rights over the said
property where a building has been erected.
No other point has been urged.
For the reasons aforesaid, this is not a fit case for interference under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Rejected.
Order Date :- 12.7.2010
PKG