MOHAMMAD KASIM Vs. DISTRICT JUDGE SULTANPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition has been filed challenging the orders dated 15.2.2007 and 17.1.2006. The petitioners happen to be the tenants of opposite parties No. 2 to 6 and in default of payment of rent a notice was sent to the petitioners on 15.6.2002 demanding Rs. 5460/-, which is outstanding against them, to which they replied on 6.7.2002. Thereafter, opposite parties No. 2 to 6 filed a suit for recovery of rent and eviction on 7.9.2002. Written statement was filed by the petitioners on 7.5.2005. On 2.8.2004 it is alleged that the petitioners preferred an application for depositing the rent, but no order was passed on the said application. On 17.1.2006 the suit of opposite parties No. 2 to 6 was allowed. The petitioners preferred a revision against the aforesaid order, which too was dismissed vide order dated 15.2.2007. Hence, this writ petition.

(2.) Learned Counsel for the opposite parties at the time of hearing of the writ petition made a specific statement that the shop is lying closed for the last more than two years and no business is being carried on in the said shop.

(3.) On the above argument, Counsel for the petitioners wanted certain time to verify the fact in regard to closure of the shop and upon instructions he has made a statement that the shop is lying closed temporarily for a short period for want of proper funds and it is not that the shop is lying closed permanently. He has further stated that the petitioners have never been in default of rent and under the orders of this Court they have deposited the rent as was due against them. It is also stated that no partnership deed was there in existence to prove the subletting and admission of the partnership in the shop in question, therefore, the Courts below have wrongly proceeded to allow the claim of the opposite parties. It is further submitted that there was no outstanding rent due against the petitioners and the entire rent has been deposited and time and again offer has also been made by the petitioners, but the rent was refused to be accepted by the opposite parties No. 2 to 6.