Court No. - 37
Case :- SECOND APPEAL No. - 517 of 2019 Appellant :- Akhtar Ali Respondent :- Hakim Syed Islam Ahmad And 2 Others Counsel for Appellant :- Faizul Hasan,Mahboob Ahmad Siddiqui Counsel for Respondent :- Ramendra Asthana
Hon'ble Siddhartha Varma,J.
The instant Second Appeal has been filed against the judgement and decree dated 11.1.2019 passed in First Appeal No. 139 of 2014 by which the judgement and decree passed by the Trial Court in Original Suit No.
93 of 1996 was affirmed. The plaintiff/respondent Hakim Syed Islam Ahmad had filed small cause suit being S.C.C. Suit No. 21 of 1983 for the eviction of the appellant/defendant from the premises being House No. 12/49 situate in Sui Katar, Kotwali Ward, Agra, and for the payment of arrears of rent. As there was a disputed question of title involved in the case, the case was transferred to the regular Civil Court, wherein the Court formulated 9 issues which were as follows:-
“1& D;k oknh oknxzLr Hkou dk Lokeh o x`gLokeh gS o izfroknh fdjk;snkj gS o mHk; i{k ds e/; x`gLokeh o fdjk;snkj dk lEcU/k gS \ 2& D;k izfroknh fMQkYVj gS \ ;fn gkW rks izHkkoA 3& D;k oknh izfroknh ls eq0 24]000@& :i;s cdk;k fdjk;s ds :i esa o 1]000@& :i;s izfrekg dh nj ls gtkZ bLrsekyh nkSjku eqdnek o rkbank olwyh izkIr djus dk vf/kdkjh gS \ 4& D;k izfroknh us oknxzLr Hkou esa rksM+QksM+ dj {kfrxzLr fd;k o eSVhfj;y ,YVsª'ku okni= eas vfHkdfFkr vk/kkjksa ij fd;s \ ;fn gkW rks izHkkoA 5& D;k izfroknh oknxzLr Hkou ls fu"dk"ku dk mRrjnk;h gS \ 6& D;k oknh izfroknh ls eq0 30]000@& :i;s {kfriwfrZ ds :i esa izkIr djus dk vf/kdkjh gS \ tSlk fd okn&i= esa vfHkdfFkr gSA 7& D;k okn ds fopkj.k dk {ks=kf/kdkj bl U;k;ky; dks ugha gS ,oe okn /kkjk&20 m0iz0 vf/kfu;e la0 13 lu 1972 o /kkjk&106 Vh0ih0 ,DV ls oftZr gS \ 8& D;k fu"dk"ku dh uksfVl voS/kkfud gS \ ;fn gkW] rks izHkkoA 9& oknh ;fn gS rks fdl vuqrks"k dks izkIr djus dk vf/kdkjh gS \”
Upon the assessment of evidence, the suit was decreed. The defendant/appellant thereafter filed a First Appeal being First Appeal No. 139 of 2014 whereby points for determination were formulated. Point no. 1 was to the effect as to whether the plaintiff was the owner of the property and as to whether the defendant had defaulted in the payment of rent. The Second point for determination before the First Appellate Court was as to whether the notice served upon the appellant was valid.
The first issue regarding ownership was decided in favour of the plaintiff and the finding as was arrived at by the Trial Court was affirmed. The Second issue regarding notice was also decided in favour of the landlord/plaintiff and thereafter, the appeal was dismissed.
Learned counsel for the appellant raised various issues regarding ownership. However, upon going through the judgement of the two courts' below, I find that no substantial question of law is involved in this Appeal.
The appeal is, therefore, dismissed.
The appellant, however, requested for some time to vacate the premises.
In view of the request made, the appellant is granted time of six months to vacate the premises in question, subject to filing of an undertaking by him before the Executing Court, which would be as under :
(1) The appellant shall handover peaceful possession of the premises in question to the landlord-opposite party on or before 26.10.2019;
(2) The appellant shall file the undertaking before the Executing Court to the said effect within two weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order;
(3) The appellant shall pay the entire decretal amount within a period of one month from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order;
(4) The appellant shall pay the rent payable as per the judgement and decree of the courts below by seventh day of every succeeding month and continue to deposit the same in the Court below till 26.10.2019 or till the date he vacates the premises, whichever is earlier, and the landlord would be at liberty to withdraw the said amount;
(5) In the undertaking the appellant shall also state that he would not create any interest in favour of any third party in the premises in dispute;
(6) Subject to the filing of the said undertaking, the decree shall not put in to execution for the aforesaid period;
(7) It is made clear that in case of default of any of the conditions mentioned herein-above, the protection granted by this Court shall stand vacated automatically; and
(8) In case the premises is not vacated as per the undertaking given by the appellant, he shall also be liable for contempt.
There shall be no order as to costs.
Order Date :- 26.4.2019 praveen.
(Siddhartha Varma,J.)