# Anil Kumar v. Kishan Lal

- **Citation:** (2012) 2 ILRA 640
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2012-05-08
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 48329 of 2011
- **Bench:** Shashi Kant Gupta
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/anil-kumar-v-kishan-lal-42242
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

Constitution of India, Article 226-suit for
arrear of Rent and eviction-denied by
Trail Court-with findings of default in
rent-future benefits of Section 114 of
T.P. Act not available-in absence of
written
argument
between
partiesinterference by Revisional Court taking
otherwise-views-held-illegal
being
contrary to law.

Held: Para 8

Since
there
is
no
written
lease
agreement between the parties, the
provisions of Section 111(g) is not
applicable, therefore, the respondent can
not take benefit of Section 114 of the
T.P. Act.
Case law discussed:
2005 (3) Allahabad Rent Cases, Page 764

## Text

640 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2012
land of the petitioner along with his other
holding.

10. No other issue has been argued.

11. In view of the above discussion
it is evident that the matter need be
reconsidered by the authorities below on
the issues discussed above.

12. The writ petition is allowed. The
impugned orders dated 28.9.1993 and
30.5.1994 (Annexures No. 1 and 2 to the
writ petition) are hereby set aside. The
matter is remanded to the Prescribed
Authority to reconsider the matter and
pass a fresh order in accordance with law
after affording opportunity of hearing to
all concerned parties.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 08.05.2012

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SHASHI KANT GUPTA, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 48329 of 2011

Anil Kumar

 ...Petitioner
Versus
Kishan Lal

 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri R.D.Tiwari
Sri M.D.Singh 'Shekhar'

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Sandeep Agarwal
C.S.C.
Sri Rahul Sahai

Constitution of India, Article 226-suit for
arrear of Rent and eviction-denied by
Trail Court-with findings of default in
rent-future benefits of Section 114 of
T.P. Act not available-in absence of
written
argument
between
partiesinterference by Revisional Court taking
otherwise-views-held-illegal
being
contrary to law.

Held: Para 8

Since
there
is
no
written
lease
agreement between the parties, the
provisions of Section 111(g) is not
applicable, therefore, the respondent can
not take benefit of Section 114 of the
T.P. Act.
Case law discussed:
2005 (3) Allahabad Rent Cases, Page 764

(Delivered by Hon'ble Shashi Kant Gupta,J. )

1. This writ petition has been filed
against the judgement and order dated
18.07.2011 passed by Lower Appellate
Court/Additional District and Sessions
Judge, Court No. 5, Mathura, whereby
the order passed by the Trial Court
dated 26.10.2009 was set aside and the
matter was remanded to the Trial Court.

Brief facts of the case as set out
in the writ petition are as follows:-

2. The petitioner purchased the
disputed shop by registered sale deed
dated 03.06.2004. The petitioner sent a
registered notice under Section 106 of
Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (in short
"T.P. Act") which was duly served upon
the tenant-opposite party and also
replied
by
him.
Thereafter,
the
petitioner filed a S.C.C. Suit No. 8 of
2005 for arrears of rent and ejectment.
The respondent-tenant filed a written
statement admitting the fact that the
petitioner is a landlord and the rent is
Rs.150/- per month.

3. The Trial Court by order dated
26.10.2009 decreed the suit for arrears
of rent holding that the U.P. Act No.
2 All] Anil Kumar V. Kishan Lal
641
XIII of 1972 (in short "the Act") is not
applicable to the property in dispute. It
was also held that the respondent-tenant
committed default in payment of rent
and is not entitled to benefit of Section
114 of the T.P. Act. Feeling aggrieved
and dissatisfied with the said order, the
respondent filed a Revision, which was
registered as S.C.C. Revision No. 20 of
2009. The Revisional Court by order
dated 18.07.2011 allowed the revision
and remanded the matter to the Trial
Court for disposal afresh mainly on the
ground that the Court below had erred
in not giving the benefit of Section 114
of the T.P. Act. Hence the present writ
petition.

4. Heard learned counsel for the
parties and perused the record.

5. Learned counsel for the
petitioner has mainly argued that the
order passed by the Revisional Court is
wholly
erroneous,
perverse
and
arbitrary, therefore, it is liable to be set
aside.

6. It is not disputed that no written
lease agreement was executed between
the parties, so, it can not be said that the
lease was determined by way of
forfeiture as provided under Section
111(g) of the T.P. Act. That being so,
the necessary corollary whereof would
be that the Provision of Section 114 of
the T.P. Act would also not be
applicable. Thus the respondent can not
claim any benefit of Section 114 of the
T.P. Act.

7. Learned counsel for the
petitioner has relied upon a decision of
this Court in the case of Yashpal Vs.
Allahatala Malik Waqf Azakhan and
others, 2005(3) Allahabad Rent Cases,
Page 764, wherein it has been held as
follows:-

"Hence, the submission made by
the learned counsel for the petitioner
(defendant) that Section 111, Clause
(g) would be rendered redundant if
Category (1) of the said Clause (g) is
confined to only a written lease,
cannot, in my view, be accepted.

Hence, in view of the aforesaid, it
follows that for the applicability of
Section 111 (g), Category (1), and, as
such, of Section 114 of the Transfer of
Property Act, it is necessary that the
lease must be in writing containing the
express
condition
as
per
the
requirements
of
Section
111
(g),
Category (1). In case, there is no
written lease- deed, the provisions of
Section 111(g), Category (1), and, as
such, of Section 114 of the Transfer of
Property Act will not apply. The
provisions of Section 111 (g), Category
(1), and consequently, of Section 114
of the Transfer of property Act are not
applicable to oral lease. This view gets
support
from
various
judicial
decisions."

8. Since there is no written lease
agreement between the parties, the
provisions of Section 111(g) is not
applicable, therefore, the respondent can
not take benefit of Section 114 of the
T.P. Act.

9. I do not find any fault in the
order passed by the Trial Court.

10. In view of the above, the order
passed by the Revisional Court dated
18.07.2011 is set aside and order passed
642 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2012
by the Trial Court dated 26.10.2009 is
hereby confirmed. The writ petition is
accordingly, allowed.

11. After the judgment was
dictated,
learned
counsel
for
the
respondent urged that at least six
months time may be granted to him for
vacating the premises in question. The
learned counsel for the landlord did not
raise any objection to it.

12. As urged by the learned
counsel for the respondent, six month's
time is granted to the respondent to
vacate the premises in dispute provided
the respondent gives his undertaking in
the form of an affidavit before the
concerned Court within one month from
today specifically stating therein that
they
will
handover
the
peaceful
possession of the said accommodation
to
the
petitioner-landlord
without
inducting any third person within a
period of six months from today and
also deposit the entire decretal amount
including the current rent/damages for
use and occupation of the disputed
premises within a period of one month
from today.

13. In the event of default of any
of the aforesaid conditions, the landlord
will be at liberty to proceed to evict the
respondent if necessary by coercive
process with the aid of police force.
---------

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 29.05.2012

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE B. AMIT STHALEKAR, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 58347 of 2006

Devendra Singh Sisodiya
 ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. Thru' Secretary U.P. and
others

 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri A.S. Diwekar
Sri Meraj Uddin
Sri Pulak Ganguly

Counsel for the Respondent:
C.S.C.
Sri V.K. Singh
Sri N.N. Verma

Constitution
of
India,
Article
226Dismissal on ground of absent from
duty-petitioner suffering form T.B. Duly
supported by medical certificate-could
not appear before inquiry officer-without
fixing another date place and timewithout even examining the authority on
behalf
of
Department
(author
of
chargesheet)-submitted
report
as
petitioner fail to appear in inquiry-hence
nothing to say-appeal also dismissedeven finding of guilt recorder without
disclosing material on bass of inquiry
report submitted on the document the
basis of recording the finding-merely
saying-petitioner did not participate on
submitted any defence-dismissal order
quashed with liberty to pass from order
within period of two month.

Held: Para 13 and 14

As per the law laid down by the Supreme
Court it is incumbent upon the enquiry
officer to have discussed the report of
the Sr. Station Officer, Taj Depot, Agra
and the documents relied upon while