Civil Revision No. 472 of 1984. Case: The Primier Motors (P) Ltd. and Ors. Vs Jaswant Prasad and Ors.. High Court of Allahabad (India)
| Case Number | Civil Revision No. 472 of 1984 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: G.P. Verma, Adv. and For Respondents: K.L. Grover, Adv. |
| Judges | K.C. Agrawal, J. |
| Issue | Uttar Pradesh Act, 1976; Central Act, 1976 - Section 97(1); Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) - Order 15 Rule 5 |
| Citation | 1989 (1) AWC 227 (All) |
| Judgement Date | December 05, 1988 |
| Court | High Court of Allahabad (India) |
Judgment:
K.C. Agrawal, J.
-
Suit No. 218 of 1981 was filed by Jaswant Prasad and others against the Premier Motors Private Limited and others for ejectment and recovery of arrears of rent and damages in respect of house No. 54, Civil Lines, Bareilly.
-
The Plaintiffs claimed that by a registered deed dated 16-10-1959/ 19-10-1959, the Defendants 1 and 2 took on lease the land measuring 17000 sq. feet forming part of plot No. 54, Civil Lines. Bareilly on a monthly rent of Rs. 200/-. The lease was initially granted for a period of ten years. In pursuance of the renewal clause, the Defendants 1 and 2 exercised the option to get the lease renewed for another period of ten years beginning from 1-10-1969 to 30th September, 1979. The rent was enhanced to Rs. 650/- per month. Extended period of lease expired on 30th September, 1979, and tenancy of the Defendants came to an end by efflux of time on 30th September, 1979. The Defendants were then requested to vacate the land and to hand over possession to the Plaintiffs, but they did not pay any heed, hence the suit was for possession from the land. The Plaintiffs claimed that provisions of U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972 did not apply as what was let out was a land. The Defendants 1 and 2 contested the suit by means of a written statement and denied that Rs.650/- was the rent per month. According to them, lump sum payment of Rs. 650/- was being made to the Plaintiffs for each month for being adjusted towards future liability and that the Defendants have not committed default According to them, the agreed rent was Rs. 250/- per month, and as such, the claim of the Plaintiffs that the Defendants were defaulter was not correct. The Defendants further alleged that their tenancy had not come to an end and was still subsisting.
-
The Defendants since did not comply with Order XV, Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure by depositing the rent required under the same, the Plaintiffs filed an application for striking off the defence/written statement on 4-4-1983. The application was contested by the Defendants by means of an objection. The Civil Judge held that as Order XV, Rule 5 of the Code had not complied with the written statement was liable to be struck off.
-
Against the said order, this revision was filed. Being of the opinion that the Full Bench case, Smt. Chandra Rani v. Vikram Singh 1979 AWC 47holding U.P. Act 57 of 1976 was required to be reconsidered, therefore, the learned Single Judge before whom...
To continue reading
Request your trial