VIDYAWATI Vs. DEVENDRA KUMAR
LAWS(ALL)-2004-5-94
HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Decided on May 18,2004

VIDYAWATI Appellant
VERSUS
DEVENDRA KUMAR Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

SURESH CHAND V. GULAM CHISTI [REFERRED TO]
SRIKISHAN KUMAR V. MANOJ KUMAR [REFERRED TO]
VINEET KUMAR VS. MANGAL SAIN WADHERA [REFERRED TO]
NANO KISHORE MARWAH VS. SAMUNDRI DEVI [REFERRED TO]
ATMA RAM MITTAL VS. ISHWAR SINGH PUNIA [REFERRED TO]
RAMESH CHANDRA VS. III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE [REFERRED TO]
BHOLA NATH VARSHNEY SINCE DEAD VS. MULK RAJ MADAN [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

Tarun Agarwala, J. - (1.)The plaintiffs filed a suit for eviction of the defendant on the ground of arrears of rent and for possession of the premises in question. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant was a tenant and was in arrears of rent. The premises in question was constructed in the year 1975 and. therefore, U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 was not applicable to the building in question. The plaintiff served a notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act determining the tenancy. The plaintiff alleged that the said notice was duly served upon the defendant and inspite of the expiry of the period, the arrears of rent was not paid nor did the defendant vacate the premises in question.
(2.)The defendant contested the suit on the ground that he was not in arrears of rent and that the tenanted portion was not constructed in the year 1975 and was constructed much earlier and that U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 was applicable to the building in question. The defendant further stated that the rent, etc. was sent to the plaintiff through a money order, which was refused and thereafter, the defendant deposited the entire amount in the Court before the first date of hearing and was, therefore, entitled to the benefit of Section 20 (4) of U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972.
(3.)The Judge Small Cause Court after determining the points in Issue dismissed the suit of the plaintiff. The Judge Small Cause Court held that the defendant was in arrears of rent and had committed a default in the payment of rent. However, since the defendant had deposited the entire amount before the first date of hearing, the defendant was therefore, entitled to the benefit of Section 20 (4) of the said Act. The Judge Small Cause Court further held that the building in question was constructed in the year 1975 and, therefore, the building was not ten years old, when the suit was instituted by the plaintiff. However, a period of ten years were completed during the pendency of the proceedings and therefore, the Act became applicable on the building. The Court relied upon the judgment in Vineet Kumar v. Mangal Sain, AIR 1985 SC 817, and dismissed the suit of the plaintiff.


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.