SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Before:- S.S.M. Quadri and Y.K. Sabharwal, JJ.

Civil Appeal No. 2958 of 1991. D/d. 25.7.2000.

Hanuman Prasad - Appellant

Versus

IIIrd Addl. District Judge and others - Respondents

Constitution of India, Article 136 - Special leave petition - Eviction - Ground rent in arrears - Pleading before Supreme Court - Quantum of rent disputed - Contention already declined by trial and appellant Courts - Orders of eviction maintained.

[Para 3]

JUDGMENT

This appeal by special leave is from the judgment of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in W.P. 4854/87 dated February 25, 1991 : (reported in 1991 All LJ 284).

2. The appellant is the tenant of the suit premises from a time prior to 1944. The third respondent purchased the property from the erstwhile owner in July, 1969 and thus became the landlord. The appellant defaulted in payment of rent to the third respondent from October 1, 1969 to May 31, 1970. That gave rise to the litigation between the appellant and the third respondent who filed the suit against the appellant for eviction on the ground of default in payment of rent. The suit was decreed by the trial Court. In the revision against the order of eviction, the appellant was unsuccessful as the learned Additional District Judge confirmed the order of eviction against him. However, when the matter was carried before the High Court in a Writ Petition, the order of eviction was quashed and the case was remanded to the trial Court for fresh disposal in accordance with law in the light of the observations made therein. After remand the trial Court again decreed the suit against the appellant and the revisional Court confirmed it. The appellant unsuccessfully assailed the order of the revisional authority in the High Court in the writ petition. By the impugned order the High Court declined to interfere with it and dismissed the writ petition.

3. The main contention of the appellant, as before the Courts below, is that the rate of rent is not Rs. 65/- but only Rs. 51/- and thus there has been no default in payment of rent. This was not believed by the Courts below either in the first round of litigation or in the second round. We, therefore, do not find any reason to interfere with the concurrent findings recorded by the Courts below and confirmed by the High Court in the order under appeal. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed. However, the appellant is granted time till December 31, 2000 to hand over the vacant possession of the suit premises to the third respondent, subject to his paying the rent regularly and giving an undertaking within four weeks from today that he will hand over the vacant possession of the suit premises on or before December 31, 2000 and a further undertaking that he will not sublet the premises during this period. There shall be no order as to costs.

Appeal dismissed.