THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (M/S) No. 1429 of 2005. Vinod Kumar S/O Sri Raghuveer Singh, R/O 31 Nai Basti Guru Road, District Dehradun. … Petitioner. Vs. 1. Additional District Judge, Dehradun. 2. Additional Civil Judge (S.D.)/Judge Small Cause Court, Dehradun, 3. Laxmi Kant, 4. Rama Kant, Respondent no. 3 & 4 both S/O Daya Sankar, R/O 31, Nai Basti Guru Road, Dehradun. …Respondents. . Mr. Siddhartha Sah, Advocate holding brief of Mr. D.C.S.Rawat, Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioner. Sri R.C.Arya, learned Brief Holder for the respondent nos. 1 and 2. Sri Nagesh Agarwal, Advocate, learned counsel for the respondent no. 3. Date November 26, 2009. P.C.: Hon’ble B.S.Verma, J. Heard. Learned counsel for the petitioner does not press the Amendment application No.10235 of 2009. The same is dismissed as not pressed. 2. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has sought a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 24-10-1998 passed by the respondent no. 2-Judge, Small Cause Court, Dehradun in S.C.C. Suit No. 46 of 1993 (Annexure No. 4 to the petition) and the order dated 14-9-2005 passed by the respondent no.1-Additional District Judge/F.T.C. VI, Dehradun in S.C.C. Revision No. 43 of 1998 under Section 25 of the Small Cause Courts Act (for short the Act) (Annexure No. 5 to the petition). 3. Brief facts giving rise to the present writ petition are that the petitioner is a tenant in a part of property no. 61/31 Nai Basti, Guru Road, Dehradun comprising one room and a tin shed, on monthly rental @ Rs. 140/-. The respondent No. 3 Laxmi Kant is the land-lord owner of the accommodation in question along with respondent no.4- Rama Kant. The respondent no.3 Laxmi Kant filed S.C.C. Suit No. 46 of 1993 for recovery of arrears of rent and for ejectment against the 2 petitioner-tenant on the ground that the defendant-tenant has committed default in payment of rent from 1-3-1993. Ultimately by notice dated 2-7-1993 the tenancy of the defendant-petitioner was terminated. It was alleged by the plaintiff that the provisions of the U.P.Act No. 13 of 1972 are not applicable to the accommodation in question. It was also alleged that the accommodation in question is capable of fetching rent of Rs. 5/- per day. 4. The defendant-petitioner contested the suit by filing his written statement. The defendant admitted the rate of rent i.e. Rs. 140/- per month but stated that the rent of Rs. 140/- included all taxes including electricity charges @ Rs. 60/- as claimed by the plaintiff. The arrears of rent was also denied. Service of notice has also been denied and maintainability of suit was questioned. 5. On the pleadings of the parties, the learned Judge Small Cause Court framed necessary points for determination. Both the parties have filed documentary evidence before the trial court and have also led oral evidence in support of their respective contention. 6. The learned J.S.C.C. after hearing both the parties and on perusal of evidence of the parties came to the conclusion that the provisions of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 are not applicable to the property in dispute. The learned J.S.C.C. also held that the defendant- petitioner is not entitled to the benefit of Section 20(4) of the U.P.Act No. 13 of 1972. It was also held that the tenancy of the petitioner stood terminated by a legal notice w.e.f. 9-8-1993. Ultimately, the learned J.S.C.C. decreed the suit for recovery of Rs. 1500/- as arrears of rent and also for damages for illegal use and occupation @ Rs. 5/- per days by his judgment and decree dated 24-10-1998. The defendant was also directed to vacate the accommodation in question and to deliver the vacant possession thereof to the plaintiff within a period of 45 days. 3 7. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, the petitioner preferred revision under Section 25 of the Act before the District Judge, Dehradun, which was registered as S.C.C. Revision No. 43 of 1998, which was subsequently transferred to the Additional District Judge/FTC VI Dehradun for hearing and disposal. The revisional court did not find favour with the revisionist-petitioner and dismissed the revision by judgment and order dated 14-9-2005, which gave rise to the present writ petition. 8. In this writ petition, an interim order dated 6-12-2005 was passed to the following effect:- “The petitioner shall not be evicted from the accommodation in dispute till the next date of listing, provided he deposits the entire rent plus water & electricity charges alongwith the house tax of the disputed premises right from 01.03.1993 till date, within a period of four weeks from today. While depositing the said rent and other charges the sum of Rs. 3,000/- already deposited by the petitioner shall be adjusted. In case of any failure in depositing the said amount within the period prescribed by this Court, the stay order shall stand vacated automatically.” 9. Counter affidavit was filed on behalf of the respondent no. 3 Laxmi Kant wherein it has been asserted that the petitioner was liable to pay monthly rent @ 140/- besides house tax @ 10% plus water tax @ 12% as well as electricity charges @ Rs. 60/- per month. 10. Undisputedly, the petitioner has not complied the order dated 6-12-2005 and the execution proceeding is going on against the petitioner. 11. In the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that the petitioner is ready to vacate the accommodation in question but reasonable time may be given to him to vacate the premises in question. On the other hand, learned counsel 4 for the landlord respondent no.3 has submitted that the landlord would have no objection if the petitioner pays the uptodate outstanding amount of arrears of rent and damages as awarded by the learned J.S.C.C. within a period of two months and continues to deposit the monthly damages/rent etc. before the executing court and also gives an undertaking to the effect that he shall deliver the vacant and peaceful possession of the accommodation in question to the respondent no.3 within a period of six months from today. 12. Having gone through the material placed on record and having heard the submission made the learned counsel for the parties and in the above facts and circumstances of the case, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed on merits. However, the petitioner may be granted six months’ time to vacate the disputed premises and eight weeks’ time to deposit the uptodate outstanding arrears of rent/damages after adjusting the deposit, if any, made by the petitioner. 13. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed with no order as to costs. The petitioner is granted six months’ time from today to vacate the disputed premises and to deliver its vacant and peaceful possession to the landlord-respondent No.3, provided the petitioner furnishes an undertaking to that effect within a period of eight weeks from today before the executing court and deposits the entire decretal amount as directed by the learned J.S.C.C. in his judgment and decree dated 24-10-1998 including the uptodate amount of rent/damages and also continues to pay month to month rent/damages by the 7th of each month for the previous month. The deposit already made by the petitioner during the pendency of the suit and afterwards, if any, shall be adjusted towards payment of arrears of rent/damages. If case of default on the part of the petitioner, the respondent no.3-decree holder would be at liberty to execute the decree through court in execution proceeding. (B.S.Verma,J.) RCP 5