Court No. - 7 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 40263 of 2010 Petitioner :- Ram Lakhan & Others Respondent :- Vijaya Kumar Soyee Petitioner Counsel :- Umesh Shankar Hon'ble Devendra Pratap Singh,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.
This petition is directed against concurrent orders dated 17th April
2009 and 27th May 2010 by which the landlord’s suit for arrears of rent
and eviction has been decreed by both the courts below.
The respondent landlord instituted SCC Suit No. 9 of 2004 inter alia
with the allegation that the father of the petitioner was the tenant of the
disputed accommodation at Rs.350/- per month but he had defaulted
in payment of rent since December 2003 and despite notice neither
paid the rent nor vacated the premises. It was further alleged that the
premises was not covered under U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972.
After contest the suit has been decreed by both the courts below.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that for the same
premises an earlier suit on the basis of arrears of rent had been filed
but the same was dismissed and therefore the landlord was estopped
from filing the second suit and there was no worthwhile evidence to
hold that U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 did not apply.
It is apparent from the record that earlier SCC Suit No.24 of 1999 had
been filed with the allegation of default w.e.f. 1.10.1998 which was
dismissed with the finding that the rent of the disputed premises was
Rs.350/- per month and it being new construction, U.P. Act No. 13 of
1972 did not apply. These findings had become final. Thus, it cannot
be said that the present suit was barred or that the Act applied.
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 :- 14.7.2010
PKG