Heard learned counsel for the petitioners.
Present petition has been filed challenging the order dated 9.4.2019 passed by Judge of Small Causes Court / Civil Judge (S.D.), Firozabad in J.S.C.C. No. 6 of 2006 (Sri Parasnath Maharaj Virajman Digambar Jain Prachin Chaityalay vs. Smt. Sarwati Devi and others) as well as order dated 30.8.2020 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge / Additional POCSO Act, Court No. 11, Firozabad in SCC Revision No. 3 of 2019.
By the judgment impugned herein dated 9.4.2019 passed by the trial court suit of rent and eviction filed by the plaintiff was allowed. Revision filed against the same was also dismissed. For the purpose of deciding controversy six issues were framed, which includes as to whether the provisions of the Act 13 of 1972 are applicable; whether Sri Anoop Chandra Jain, Advocate was entitled to file the suit; whether the notice given to the defendant no. 1 was valid; whether the defendant has committed default in making payment of rent from 1.12.1995; whether the tenant has carried out alteration in the premises in question; whether the suit is bad on the ground of non-impleadment of Kamalbabu.
All such issues were decided against the tenants-petitioners and the revision filed against the same was also dismissed upholding the findings recorded by the trial court. Insofar nature of the property is concerned, the plaintiff is Paras Nath Maharaj Virajman Digambar Jain Prachin Chaityalaya Sthit Katra Pathanan, Kasba va Jila Firozabad through its Manager Sri Anoop Chandra Jain, Advocate, who is Sarwakar. In the evidence that was given it has come on record that Sarwati Devi in her statement has accepted that Paras Nath Ji Maharaj Temple is a place of worship of Jain Samaj and they are offering religious prayer there. It was also admitted that the Temple is public and religious in nature. Therefore, the building was covered under Section 2 (1) (bb) of the Act. Insofar as filing of the suit on behalf of Sri Anoop Chandra Jain, Advocate is concerned, it was admitted by DW-4 that he was paying rent to Sri Anoop Chandra Jain, Advocate, which was being forwarded to the Trustee of the Temple. Thus, it was admitted that he was managing affairs of the Temple and was Manager, therefore, entitled to file suit. The service of notice was proved. Insofar as default in making payment of rent it was admitted that the rent from 1.12.1995 upto the filing of the suit was not deposited. It has also come on record that during pendency of the suit also no rent was deposited. Issue of material alteration without taking permission was also decided against the tenants as it was admitted that no written permission was taken by the Tenants for this purpose.
Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that both the courts below have committed gross mistake of law and material irregularities in deciding the issue no. 1 that the provisions of UP Act 13 of 1972 would not be applicable. It was further submitted that legal heirs of the tenants were not impleaded as party and after death of defendant no. 6 her legal heirs were not impleaded in the suit.
I do not find substance in such arguments as the petitioners are admittedly in possession as tenants and other legal heirs of Late Puran Chand were also on record. The findings have been recorded on the admission of the tenant.
In such view of the matter, I do not find any jurisdictional error or perversity in the findings recorded and the conclusion drawn by the courts below. Present petition is devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed.
Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case, subject to filing of an undertaking by the petitioners-tenants before the Court below, it is provided that:
(1) The tenant-petitioner shall handover the peaceful possession of the premises in question to the landlord-opposite party on or before 31.7.2021;
(2) The tenants-petitioners shall file the undertaking before the Court below to the said effect within two weeks.
(3) The tenants-petitioners shall pay entire decretal amount within a period of two months.
(4) The tenants-petitioners shall pay damages @ Rs. 500/- per month by 07th day of every succeeding month and continue to deposit the same in the Court below till 31.7.2021 or till the date the vacate the premises, whichever is earlier and the landlord is at liberty to withdraw the said amount;
(5) In the undertaking the tenants-petitioners shall also state that they will not create any interest in favour of the third party in the premises in dispute;
(6) Subject to filing of the said undertaking, the tenants-petitioners shall not be evicted from the premises in question till 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.
(8) In case the premises is not vacated as per the undertaking given by the petitioners, they shall also be liable for contempt.
19. There shall be no order as to costs.
Order Date :- 21.1.2021 Lalit Shukla