Court No. - 5
Case :- S.C.C. REVISION No. - 84 of 2019 Revisionist :- Sri Anil Kumar Agarwal Alias Anil Kumar Garg Opposite Party :- Sri Manoj Kumar Agarwal Counsel for Revisionist :- Kalpana Sinha,Mr. Navin Sinha, Sr. Advocate Counsel for Opposite Party :- Ankur Goyal
Hon'ble Surya Prakash Kesarwani,J.
1- Heard Sri Navin Sinha, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Kalpana Sinha, learned counsel for the defendant-tenant/revisionist and Sri Kshitij Shailendra along with Ankur Goyal, learned counsel for the landlord-opposite party.
2- This revision has been filed under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Causes Courts Act,1887, praying to set aside the impugned judgment and decree dated 29.5.2019 in S.C.C. Suit No.02 of 2017(C.N.R. No.-UPAG01-000259-2017) (Manoj Kumar Agarwal v. Sri Anil Kumar Agarwal).
3- In paragraph Nos. 32, 36, 37,42 43 and 44 of the affidavit accompanying the revision, the defendant-tenant/revisionist has stated as under:
“32. That moreover, it is important to note that the court below has given revisionist a period of only two months to vacate the premises. The said direction is causing grave loss and prejudice to the petitioner.
36. That moreover, in the event that the location of the manufacturing unit is changed the license shall stand revoked and fresh license will have to be obtained.
37. That the unit of the petitioner was running concern and was the sole source of income for the revisionist as well as his family.
42. That moreover, the Revisionist has approximately 8 people in his employment who rely upon the revisionist for their livelihood and who will stand displaced in the event the Revisionist is not given a reasonable period of time to find a alternative location and vacate the present premises.
43. That the entirety of the aforementioned process will take a period of at least two years and that the same should have been considered by the court below before passing the judgment and decree dated 27th May 2019.
44. That it is stated that the Revisionist is ready and willing to pay the rent for any extended period which the Hon'ble Court may grant to the Revisionist to vacate the premises”.
4- Learned counsel for the revisionist states that the revisionist may be granted one year time to vacate the disputed premises and to hand over its vacant and peaceful possession to the plaintiff-landlord/respondent and for the period of one year a sum of Rs. 6,000/- per month shall be paid by the revisionist to the plaintiff-landlord/respondent for use and occupation of the disputed accommodation. He further states that by the impugned judgment the suit has been decreed providing 9% simple interest on arrears of rent without clarifying that the interest shall not run on the amount already deposited and, therefore, to that extent the impugned judgment dated 27.5.2019 may be clarified.
5- Learned counsel for the plaintiff-landlord/respondent submits that he has no objection to the offer made by the defendant-tenant/revisionist for vacating the disputed accommodation within one year and to hand over its peaceful and vacant possession as well as the amount offered, but the defendant- tenant/revisionist may be directed to deposit the entire decreetal amount as well as the amount offered for one year within a stipulated period and in the event, he does not hand over its peaceful and vacant possession of the disputed accommodation after the expiry of the offered period, then a specific amount of damages may be directed to be paid by the defendant-tenant/revisionist to the plaintiff-respondent.
6- In view of the statements made by the learned counsel for the parties, the impugned judgment is upheld and the revision is disposed of providing as under:
(i) The defendant-tenant/revisionist shall submit an undertaking within four weeks from today before the court below that he shall vacate the disputed accommodation on or before 15.7.2020 and shall hand over its peaceful and vacant possession to the plaintiff-landlord/respondent on or before 15.7.2020.
(ii) The defendant-tenant/revisionist shall deposit a sum of Rs.72000/- with the court below within four weeks from today towards use and occupation of the disputed accommodation for the period from today till 15.7.2020.
(iii) The defendant-tenant/revisionist shall deposit the entire decreetal amount along with interest and costs within six weeks from today after adjusting the amount already deposited by him, if any, with the court below. The interest shall be computed after adjustment of the periodically deposited amount. To that extent the impugned judgment is clarified.
(iv) In the event, the defendant-tenant/revisionist complies with the aforesaid conditions, then he shall not be evicted from the disputed premises till 15.7.2020. In the event, the conditions are not complied with; then the protection given above to the defendant-tenant/revisionist shall automatically stand vacated and the consequences shall follow.
(v) In the event, the defendant-tenant/revisionist complies with the conditions but does not hand over peaceful and vacant possession of the disputed premises to the plaintiff-landlord/respondent on or before 15.7.2020, then besides other consequences which may follow, the defendant-tenant/revisionist shall also pay an additional amount of Rs.3,000/- per day for every day of delay in vacating and handing over vacant and peaceful possession of the disputed premises to the plaintiff-landlord.
7- The revision is disposed of with the aforesaid directions.
Order Date :- 26.7.2019 Ak/