Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 161526 (ALL)

KM. RENU SINGH v. ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE COURT NO.15 LUCKNOW and ORS.

SCCRD/83/2018 · 2025-05-06

Pankaj Bhatia

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:26427 Court No. - 6 Case :- S.C.C. REVISION DEFECTIVE No. - 83 of 2018 Revisionist :- Km. Renu Singh Opposite Party :- Addl. District Judge Court No.15 Lucknow And Ors. Counsel for Revisionist :- Anurag Srivastava,Kabir Ahmad Khan Counsel for Opposite Party :- Shobhit Nigam Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J. 1. The delay in filing the revision is condoned. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 3. The present revision has been filed by the revisionist challenging the order dated 26.05.2018 whereby the suit for ejectment and arrears of rent was decreed. 4. The counsel for the revisionist argues that the relationship of landlord and tenant was non existent as he places reliance on a right to information query made by him and answered by the District Magistrate wherein it was stated that the respondent is not the landlord. 5. On perusal of the judgment, it is revealed that as many as five issues were framed in between the parties, the first issue being whether the relationship of landlord and tenant exists or not. While drawing the finding on the first issue, it was recorded that the property was given through an agreement of rent to the revisionist at the rate of Rs.4500/- per month and the revisionist had admitted in his cross examination that he was inducted as a tenant at the rate of Rs.4500/- per month. 6. Considering the fact that the relationship of landlord and tenant existed even as per the submission of the revisionist, the denial of the title itself was a ground for eviction, although the eviction decree has not been passed on the said ground. The trial Court has also recorded that the revisionist has committed default in payment of rent. No material could be placed to demonstrate that the rent was deposited and the finding is contrary to law. In view of the finding of fact recorded, no interference is called for. The revision is accordingly dismissed. 7. The counsel for the revisionist at this stage seeks sometime to vacate the premises in question. 8. In view of the said request, the revisionist is granted time to vacate the premises up to 30.09.2025 subject to the revisionist filing an undertaking in the form of an affidavit before the court below agreeing to vacate the premises on or before 30.09.2025 and to handover the same to the landlord and to no one else. The arrears of rent shall also deposited by the revisionist within a period of 15 days. In the event of failure, in either in filing of the affidavit or the deposit of rent, the benefit of this order shall not be available to the revisionist. 9. Let a copy of this order be sent to the trial Court with direction that in case the affidavit is not filed or the rent is not deposit, the execution shall proceed forthwith and shall be concluded within a period of four months positively. Order Date :- 6.5.2025 Arun Digitally signed by :- ARUN KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench