- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Hanuman Prasad v. Iiird Adj
Factual and Procedural Background
The appellant has been a tenant of the suit premises since a time prior to 1944. In July 1969, the third respondent purchased the property from the erstwhile owner and thereby became the landlord. The appellant allegedly defaulted in payment of rent to the third respondent for the period from 1-10-1969 to 31-5-1970. On this basis, the third respondent instituted a suit for eviction on the ground of default in payment of rent.
The trial court decreed the suit for eviction. The appellant’s revision was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, confirming the eviction. In a subsequent writ petition, the High Court quashed the eviction order and remanded the matter to the trial court for fresh disposal in accordance with law and in light of the High Court’s observations. After remand, the trial court again decreed the suit, and the revisional court confirmed that decree. The appellant challenged the revisional order in another writ petition before the High Court, which was dismissed by the impugned order. The present appeal by special leave is directed against the High Court’s decision in Writ Petition No. 4854 of 1987 dated 25-2-1991.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the appellant committed default in payment of rent, in light of the appellant’s contention that the agreed rent was Rs 51 per month rather than Rs 65 per month.
- Whether interference was warranted with the concurrent findings of the courts below (as affirmed by the High Court) in an appeal by special leave.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellant's Arguments
- The rate of rent was Rs 51 per month, not Rs 65 per month; therefore, there was no default in payment of rent.
Table of Precedents Cited
No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court noted that the appellant’s principal contention—disputing the rate of rent as Rs 51 instead of Rs 65—had been rejected by the courts below in both rounds of litigation. Following remand by the High Court, the trial court again decreed eviction and the revisional court confirmed it. The High Court, in the impugned order, declined interference. Observing these concurrent findings, the Court found no reason to interfere. The analysis is grounded in deference to concurrent factual findings reached by the trial and revisional courts and affirmed by the High Court.
While dismissing the appeal, the Court exercised discretion to grant the appellant time to vacate the premises until 31-12-2000, subject to specific conditions: (i) the appellant must pay rent regularly; (ii) the appellant must furnish an undertaking within four weeks to hand over vacant possession on or before 31-12-2000; and (iii) the appellant must also undertake not to sub-let the premises during this period. The Court made no order as to costs.
Holding and Implications
DISMISSED. The appeal by special leave is dismissed. The eviction decree stands affirmed through the Court’s refusal to interfere with the concurrent findings of the courts below and the High Court.
Implications: The direct effect is that the appellant remains liable to vacate the premises, with time granted until 31-12-2000 subject to the stated undertakings and regular payment of rent. There is no discussion of broader legal implications or creation of new precedent; the decision rests on acceptance of concurrent findings of fact. No order as to costs was made.
Order
1. This appeal by special leave is from the judgment of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in WP No. 4854 of 1987 dated 25-2-1991.
2. The appellant is the tenant of the suit premises from a time prior to 1944. The third respondent purchased the property from the erstwhile owner in July 1969 and thus became the landlord. The appellant defaulted in payment of rent to the third respondent from 1-10-1969 to 31-5-1970. That gave rise to the litigation between the appellant and the third respondent who filed the suit against the appellant for eviction on the ground of default in payment of rent. The suit was decreed by the trial court. In the revision against the order of eviction, the appellant was unsuccessful as the learned Additional District Judge confirmed the order of eviction against him. However, when the matter was carried before the High Court in a writ petition, the order of eviction was quashed and the case was remanded to the trial court for fresh disposal in accordance with law in the light of the observations made therein. After remand, the trial court again decreed the suit against the appellant and the revisional court confirmed it. The appellant unsuccessfully assailed the order of the revisional authority in the High Court in the writ petition. By the impugned order, the High Court declined to interfere with it and dismissed the writ petition.
3. The main contention of the appellant, as before the courts below, is that the rate of rent is not Rs 65 but only Rs 51 and thus there has been no default in payment of rent. This was not believed by the courts below either in the first round of litigation or in the second round. We, therefore, do not find any reason to interfere with the concurrent findings recorded by the courts below and confirmed by the High Court in the order under appeal. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed. However, the appellant is granted time till 31-12-2000 to hand over the vacant possession of the suit premises to the third respondent, subject to his paying the rent regularly and giving an undertaking within four weeks from today that he will hand over the vacant possession of the suit premises on or before 31-12-2000 and a further undertaking that he will not sub-let the premises during this period. There shall be no order as to costs.
Alert