Risaal Singh Alias Risal Singh vs Madan Mohan Kishan Wali And Others

Alok Kumar Verma, J

Heard Mr. Arvind Vashistha, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Vivek Pathak, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Siddhartha Singh, learned counsel for the respondents on Stay Application (No. 12354 of 2019).

Mr. Arvind Vashistha, learned Senior Advocate, submitted that the Trial Court has fixed Rs. 10,000/-(Rupees Ten Thousand) per month as mesne profit without appreciation of evidence. He further submitted that the building, whose rent is more than Rs. 2,000/- (Rupees Two Thousand) per month, stood exempted from the applicability of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (as applicable in the State of Uttarakhand) (in short, “the Act, 1972”) by virtue of Section 2 (1) (g) of the Act, 1972.

Mr. Arvind Vashistha, learned Senior Advocate, further submitted that according to the plaint, an application was given by the respondents-plaintiffs to the District Magistrate under Section 16 of the Act, 1972, and it is specifically stated in the plaint that the provisions of the said Act, 1972 are applicable in the present matter, from which, it is clear that in the present matter, provisions of the Act, 1972 apply, therefore, the revisionist-defendant is ready to deposit the maximum rent i.e. Rs. 2,000/- per month as mesne profit from the date of the institution of the Original Suit No. 140 of 2011 within four weeks without prejudice to rights of the revisionist.

Mr. Siddhartha Singh, learned counsel for the respondents, opposed the said submissions of learned Senior Advocate appearing for the revisionist, and submitted that the present matter does not pertain to landlord-tenant relationship and according to the plaint, the appellant is an unauthorized occupant. He has relied upon a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in “Malwa Strips Pvt. Ltd. vs. Jyoti Ltd. 2009 (76) ALR 428”.

In the said judgment, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held:-

“14. The Appellate Court, indisputably, has the discretion to direct deposit of such amount, as it may think fit, although the decretal amount has not been deposited in its entirety by the judgment-debtor at the time of filing of the appeal. But while granting stay of the execution of the decree, is must take into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case before it. It is not to act arbitrarily either way. If a stay is granted, sufficient cause must be shown, which means that the materials on record were required to be perused and reasons are to be assigned. Such reasons should be cogent and adequate“.

In the facts and circumstances of the case, subject to depositing the amount as undertakes by the appellant before the Trial Court concerned within four weeks from today, the effect and operation of the impugned judgment and decree dated 09.08.2019, passed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Haridwar in Original Suit No. 140 of 2011, “Madan Mohan Kishan Wali and Others vs. Risaal Singh alias Risal Singh”, are stayed till disposal of the present First Appeal.

List the Appeal on 12.05.2023 for final hearing.

Let a certified copy of this order be supplied to the learned counsel for the appellant within 24 hours on payment of usual charges.