PRATIBHA VERMA Vs. XII-ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE LUCKNOW

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS review petition arises out of the judgment and order dated 13.1.14, passed in Writ Petition No. 41(R/C) of 1999, filed by the review petitioner which was dismissed giving six months time to the petitioner to vacate the premises in dispute and for this period of six months to deposit Rs. 6000/ - per month as damages for use and occupation within a month before the court below to be paid to the land lord - respondent. The petitioner was further required to file an undertaking before the court below to the effect that within six months from the date of judgment he will vacate and hand over possession of the property in dispute to the respondent and shall also deposit the entire decretal amount within one month before the court below to be paid to the respondent.

(2.) THE brief facts giving rise to the filing of this review petition are that the petitioner filed a writ petition before this Court assailing the judgment and decree passed by the Judge, Small Causes Court, Lucknow in SCC Suit No. 250 of 1995, Kamakhya Dhaam Charitable Trust, Baba Bhoot Nath Vs. Smt. Pratibha Verma. The subject matter of the dispute is a shop which is in occupation of the petitioner on a monthly rent of Rs. 480/ -. The respondent no.2 -landlord in his plaint specifically pleaded that U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 (Act) was not applicable to the building in dispute; firstly, because the first assessment was made in September, 1990 which would be the date of construction and the Rent Control Act would be applicable after expiry of a period of 40 years and secondly because the property belonged to Public Religious Institution / Trust and therefore, the property was exempted from the purview of the Act. The trial court dismissed the suit on 30.5.1997. The respondent no.2 had pleaded that the rate of rent is Rs. 480/ - per month but the petitioner, however, asserted that the rate of rent was Rs. 585/ - per month which was deposited under Section 30 of the Act. The trial court held that the Act was applicable to the building in dispute and the review petitioner was not defaulter. With regard to the applicability of the exemption clause, the trial court held that since the trust deed was not registered, it was not proved that it was a public charitable trust. The trial court further held that the petitioner was tenant since 1981 and thus the year of construction of building was 1981.

(3.) FEELING aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the trial court, the respondent no.2 filed SCC Revision No. 88 of 1997 which was allowed by the Additional District Judge, Court No.13, Lucknow, vide judgment and order dated 22.3.1999 setting aside the judgment and decree of the trial court. Consequently the suit of the respondent no.2 for eviction of arrears of land and recovery of rent was decreed. The petitioner being dis -satisfied with the judgment and order passed in SCC Revision No. 88 of 1997, preferred a writ petition being Writ Petition No. 41 (R/C) of 1999 before this Court, which was dismissed vide judgment and order dated 13.1.2014.