Shashi Kant Gupta, J.@mdashThis writ petition has been filed against the judgment and order dated 19.3.2012 passed by the Additional District Judge, Court No. 16, Agra in SCC Revision No. 27 of 2011 upholding the judgment and order dated 17.8.2011 passed by the Additional Judge, Small Causes Court, Aligarh in SCC Suit No. 35 of 2004 whereby the suit of the plaintiff-Respondent (in short "landlord") filed for arrears of rent and ejectment was decreed. A suit for arrears of rent and ejectment was filed by the landlord. The trial court after perusing the pleadings, oral and documentary evidence on record decreed the suit by order dated 17.8.2011. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said order, the petitioner filed a SCC revision which was dismissed. Hence the present writ petition.
2. The only contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the Courts below have committed illegality in not giving the benefit of Section 20(4) of the UP Act No. 13 of 1972 (in short "Act") and the impugned orders passed by the courts below are based on complete misreading of the case and misconception of the legal position relevant to the matter, and has not considered the material available on record in right perspective.
3. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-landlord has supported the impugned orders passed by the courts below and has submitted that the petitioner did not deposit the entire amount as provided u/s 20(4) of the Act, as such, the courts below were fully justified in decreeing the suit in favour of the landlord. Learned counsel for the respondent-landlord further submitted that the petitioner did not deposit the entire money as provided u/s 20(4) of the Act at the first date of hearing for use and occupation of the building in question, as such, the courts below were justified in not giving the benefit of Section 20(4) of the Act.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
5. The Courts below have very categorically recorded a finding of fact that the petitioners have not deposited the entire money as provided u/s 20(4) of the Act at the first date of hearing, as such, the court below was fully justified in not granting any benefit as provided u/s 20(4) of the Act. The courts below have recorded a finding of fact and held that the petitioners have committed default in payment of the rent. The learned counsel for the petitioners has not been able to point out any illegality in the impugned orders passed by the courts below.
6. Both the courts below have given cogent, convincing and satisfactory reasons while decreeing the suit of the landlord against the petitioner. The findings recorded by the courts below are neither perverse nor based on any extraneous or irrelevant material. The courts below have on meticulous evaluation of evidence held that the petitioner has committed default in the payment of rent and also has not deposited the entire amount as provided u/s 20(4) of the Act at the first date of hearing. The findings recorded by the courts below are based on material on record and this Court, while exercising its power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, can not substitute its opinion for the opinion of the courts below unless it is found that the conclusion drawn by the courts below is manifestly illegal and perverse.
7. In view of what has been discussed, herein above, I do not find any illegality, infirmity or perversity in the impugned orders which may warrant any interference.
8. No other point has been pressed by the learned counsel for the petitioners.
9. In the result, the writ petition fails and is dismissed.
10. Lastly, learned counsel for the petitioner urged that at least nine months'' time may be granted to the petitioners for vacating the premises in dispute. The learned counsel for the respondent-landlord did not raise any objection to it.
11. As urged by the learned counsel for the petitioners, nine months'' time is granted to the petitioners to vacate the premises in dispute provided they gives their undertaking in the form of an affidavit before the prescribed authority within one month from today specifically stating therein that they will handover the peaceful possession of the said accommodation to the respondent-landlord without inducting any third person within a period of nine months from today. It is further provided that the petitioner shall deposit L 400/- L Four Hundred) per month as rent/damages w.e.f. April 2012 for use and occupation of the disputed premises by 7th of each succeeding month before the trial court for immediate payment to the landlord. In case of default in compliance of the aforementioned conditions, the stay order shall stand automatically vacated and the respondent-landlord will be at liberty to evict the petitioner with the aid of the police force.
