MOHD. ANWAR Vs. SURENDRA KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioners aggrieved against order dated 28.02.2015 passed by the trial court, whereby, the application filed by the petitioners under Section 114 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 ('the Act') has been rejected.

(2.) The suit was filed by the respondent-plaintiff for eviction of the petitioners from the suit premises; it was, inter alia, indicated in the plaint that the suit property was let out to the defendants and w.e.f. 01.01.2009 the rent of the premises was Rs. 550/- per month and the tenancy was renewed; the defendants have paid rent upto 30.06.2009, whereafter they have not paid the rent and despite repeated demands the same remains outstanding; the premises were required for personal necessity and despite demands the premises have not been vacated and the rent has not been paid; ultimately, by notice dated 19.12.2012 sent through counsel, the plaintiff has terminated the tenancy, which was the cause of action and sought possession of the suit property.

(3.) The trial court after hearing the parties came to the conclusion that the suit has not been filed on account of forfeiture for non-payment of rent and the same has been filed after terminating the tenancy under Section 106 of the Act and, therefore, provisions of Section 114 of the Act were not applicable and, consequently, dismissed the application. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the trial court fell in error in dismissing the application filed by the petitioners; the provisions of Section 114 of the Act were very much applicable to the facts of the present case and, therefore, with the payment as envisaged by Section 114 of the Act, the suit should have been dismissed.