Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:54010 Court No. - 4 Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 2403 of 2025 Petitioner :- Shakir Respondent :- Mohd. Jahangeer Counsel for Petitioner :- Apoorva Bhatt,Arpit Agarwal Counsel for Respondent :- Mohammad Fateh Hon'ble Ajit Kumar,J. Heard learned counsel for the parties. By means of present petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution, petitioner has questioned the order passed by Judge Small Causes directing for eviction of the petitioner from demised premises with further direction for payment of due rent of Rs. 1200/- alongwith interest @ 9 per cent with further direction to pay Rs. 5,00/- damages per day as mesne profit from the date of judgment till actual delivery of possession to the landlord, The order passed by the Court sitting in revision dated 27th January, 2025 affirming the order of the judge Small Cause has also been assailed. The main ground for attacking the judgment of Judge Small Cause is that the court proceeded to decide the matter in hot haste and findings returned by the Judge Small Causes are mostly based on surmises and conjectures inasmuch as trial court failed to consider that plaintiff had not been able to prove his case for default in payment of arrears of rent and the suit has been decreed only by giving benefit of lacunae in defence set up by petitioner. Thus, according to learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner the weakness of defence has been made a ground to decree of suit, instead of decreeing the suit on plaintiffs own stand taken in the plaint, which he miserably failed to prove. It is further contended that the Court sitting in revision has not looked at all these aspects of the matter and has simply passed the order of affirmance. I have gone through judgments of the trial courts, namely, Judge Small Causes as well judgment passed by judge sitting in revision and have also perused the record. From the judgments of trial judge, I find two points were framed of determination: whether tenant had defaulted in payment of rent and hence deserved eviction; and whether the tenant had inducted defendant no. 1 had sublet the demised premises to defendant no. 2. The Court proceeded to decide both issues simultaneously as according to the trial court they were interwoven. After discussing various facts pleaded by the respective parties and the evidence led, the Court came to return a finding that PW-1 in his examination-in-chief had made statement absolutely in favour of plaint allegations and during cross examination nothing could be divulged from him to arrive at a conclusion that statement made in examination in chief and pleadings raised in the plaint got rendered doubtful. The court also discussed the testimony of PW-2, who also supported the stand of the plaintiff and stated very categorically that rent was due upon the tenant to be paid to landlord and that defendant no. 1/ tenant had sublet the shop to defendant no. 2. P.W. 3 Taslim has also made statement in favour of plaintiff and also during cross examination reiterated the stand. Thus, the Court arrived at finding that plaint allegations stood proved in view of the testimony of three plaintiffs' witnesses and was, therefore, able to prove plaint's case and the Court having found the petitioner to be in arrears of rent for default in payment of rent directed for his eviction and also directed for due payment of Rs. 1200 /- @ 9 percent interest. In so far as this finding part is concerned, I do not find there to be any error manifest one from discussion or otherwise from recitals made in the judgment so as to warrant interference in the judgment passed by the District Judge, Bareilly affirming the order passed by the trial judge. However, in so far direction issued for payment of rent @ Rs.500/- per day is concerned, I do not find it to be justified one as no reason has been assigned for providing such damages per day as mesne profit, and accordingly to that extent the order needs to be set aside. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that he has no objection in the event, part of the judgment that provides for mesne profit @ Rs. 500/- per day from the date petitioner was directed to be evicted i.e. 6.9.2022 till actual eviction takes place, is set aside. In view of above, in so far as the order of rent of Rs. 1200/- alongwith 9 percent interest is concerned under the judgment passed by Judge Small Cause dated 6.9.2022 affirmed in SCC Case No. 33 of 2010 is upheld . In so far judgment and decree directing for payment of damages @ Rs. 500/- per day w.e.f. 6th October, 2022, thirty days after judgment for retaining accommodation till date actual delivery of possession is concerned stands set aside provided of-course petitioners files affidavit before the Court concerned that he will be vacating premises within 45 days from the date issuance of certified copy of this judgment. In the event petitioner fails of vacate the premises in question, he would liable to pay damages @ Rs. 500/- per day till he actually vacates premises w.e.f 6.10.2022 till he actual vacation. With the aforesaid observations and directions, this petition stands partly allowed. Order Date :- 12.3.2025 Sanjeev Digitally signed by :- SANJEEV RANJAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad