Civil Revision No. 466 of 2011. Case: Ram Swaroop Natthimal Vs Central Bank of India. High Court of Allahabad (India)
| Case Number | Civil Revision No. 466 of 2011 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: Swapnil Kumar, Adv. and For Respondents: G.P. Srivastava, Sahab Tiwari and Saurabh Tewari, Advs. |
| Judges | Shashi Kant Gupta, J. |
| Issue | Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent &. Eviction) Act, 1972 - Sections 2(1)(g), 20(4), 21(8) |
| Citation | 2014 (107) ALR 271 |
| Judgement Date | September 26, 2014 |
| Court | High Court of Allahabad (India) |
Judgment:
Shashi Kant Gupta, J.
-
This revision is directed against the judgment and order dated 19.8.2011 passed by the Additional District Judge, Court No. 7/J.S.C.C., Aligarh in S.C.C. Suit No. 12 of 2007, Ram Swaroop Natthi Mal H.U.F. v. Central Bank of India, whereby the suit filed by the revisionist for arrears of rent and ejectment has been dismissed. Brief facts of the case are as follows;
-
The suit in question was filed by Ram Swaroop Natthimal, Qasba Harduaganj, District Aligarh H.U.F. through its Karta Shri Rajendra Swaroop Agarwal for arrears of rent and ejectment. The plaintiff-revisionist is admittedly the owner and landlord of the building in dispute which was under the tenancy of respondent bank. Premises in dispute was let out to the Bank in the year 1979 on monthly rent of ` 450/- by a rent deed. Rent Control Case No. 5 of 1994 was filed on behalf of the plaintiff-revisionist under section 21(8) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 (in short "the Act") against the respondent bank for enhancement of the rent. Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Aligarh fixed the rent at the rate of ` 2,200/- per month by judgment and order dated 26.12.1998 w.e.f. 7.4.1994, however the rate of rent was reduced by the Appellate Court in Appeal No. 3 of 1999 to ` 2,153/- per month with effect from 7.4.1994. After the insertion of section 2(1)(g) by U.P. Act No. 5 of 1995 in the Act, the building in dispute stood exempted from the provisions of the Act as the rent of the building was above ` 2,000/- per month i.e., ` 2,153/-. It is notable that the plaintiff-revisionist had filed earlier also one S.C.C. Suit No. 6 of 2003 for the arrears of rent and eviction which was contested by the respondent bank and ultimately the said suit was dismissed on 21.1.2006 by Additional District Judge, Court No. 9, Aligarh. Copy of the judgment dated 21.1.2006 has also been filed alongwith the present revision. In the aforementioned judgment the Court below has recorded a specific finding that as admitted by the parties the provisions of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 are not applicable as the rent of the building is above ` 2,000/- i.e., ` 2,153/- per month. The plaintiff-revisionist after terminating the tenancy by a notice dated 5.12.2006 of the bank filed a S.C.C. Suit No. 12 of 2007, Ram Swaroop Natthimal H.U.F. v. Central Bank of India, in the Court of Judge Small Cause Court on 24.4.2007 for arrears of rent and eviction and specifically pleaded that the provisions of...
To continue reading
Request your trial