Ram Kumar Panwar vs Balarani (Since Dead) and others

Prakash Krishna, J.

Challenging the judgment and decree dated 25.1.2011 passed by Judge Small Causes/Additional District Judge, Court No. 7, Muzaffarnagar in S.C.C. Suit No. 10 of 2000 whereby decree for eviction of the defendantapplicant as also for recovery of arrears of rent and damages etc. has been passed, the present revision under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Causes Court Act has been filed.

The facts may be noticed in brief:

The relationship of landlord and tenant is not in dispute. The suit giving rise to the present revision was filed on the ground that the provisions of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 are not applicable as the monthly rent is Rs.2000/. The defendanttenant has failed to pay the rent since 1st May, 1998 inspite of notice terminating the tenancy.

In defence, the defendanttenant took shelter of Section 53A of Transfer of Property Act on the allegations that there is a registered agreement of sale in his favour executed by the plaintiff. Contention was that the defendanttenant is in possession in pursuance of the said agreement to sell and is entitled to protect his possession under Section 53A of the T.P. Act.

Heard Shri R.N. Singh, learned Senior Counsel along with Sri Vishnu Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Ashok Mehta, learned counsel for the landlordopposite parties.

The agreement to sell is a registered document and it has not been disputed by the plaintiff. However, suit for specific performance of contract to sell in pursuance of the agreement was filed which has admittedly been dismissed. It has been stated that the matter is pending in first appeal before this Court. The trial court in the present case has found that even after execution of the said agreement, relationship of landlord and tenant has not come to an end. The agreement of sale specifically recites that the second party to the agreement will get possession at the time of execution of the saledeed.

The trial court has held that the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties continued to exist. Shri R.N. Singh, learned Senior Counsel submits only this much that the suit for specific performance of contract to sale was dismissed only on short ground that the plaintiff therein who is defendant herein, failed to prove his readiness and willingness.

Be that as it may, it is not relevant for the present purposes as admittedly the suit has been dismissed.

Now coming to the agreement in question it is evident that under condition no. 2 of the agreement, possession would be transferred to the defendant only after execution of the saledeed. It logically follows that till execution of the saledeed status of the defendantapplicant herein shall remain as that of tenant. In other words, there is no change of status of defendanttenant. The findings recorded by the trial Court is thus, perfectly justified and calls for no interference.

Any other point was not pressed.

In view of the above, there is no merit in the revision.

At the end, learned counsel for the applicant seeks some reasonable time to vacate the disputed accommodation to which Shri Ashok Mehta, learned counsel for the landlordopposite parties has no objection.

The defendantapplicant is granted time upto 31st July, 2012 to vacate the disputed accommodation subject to the following conditions:

(1) The defendantapplicant shall deposit the entire arrears of rents and damages for its use and occupation, after adjusting the amount, if any, already deposited for the period upto 31st July, 2012 within a period of one month from today, before trial court.

(2) Within one month, defendantapplicant shall also file an undertaking on affidavit before the trial court that he will vacate the disputed accommodation on or before 31st July, 2012 and shall hand over its peaceful vacant possession to the plaintiff landlord without creating any third party interest.

In case of default in compliance of any of the conditions stipulated above, the time granted shall stand vacated automatically.

The revision is dismissed, summarily.