Lease-Deed Agri Land

11/11/2016
NOTICEFROMSMT.PREETYGARG,W/OSHRI|LegalAdvice
Legal Question in Landlord & Tenant Law

(/answers/search/category/85) in India
(/answers/search/location_country/IN)
1,2,3BHKsonNH24
Featureslikeclubmembership,freeparking,powerbackup.Owna2BHKin24.5L*Goto
wavecity.in/Affordable+flat/NH+24
NOTICE FROM SMT. PREETY GARG, W/O SHRI ABHISHEK GARG, R/O L 465, SHASTRI NAGAR MEERUT THROUGH SHRI SUDHIR KUMAR SHARMA,
ADVOCATE, MEERUT OFFICE CHAMBER NO. 152, COLLECTORATE
COMPOUND, (BETWEEN ELECTION OFFICE AND JAIN MILAN PIAU
ROUNDABOUT KUTCHERY, MEERUT)
TO
SHRI JAI RAJ SINGH, S/O SHRI BALBIR SINGH, R/O KP - 41 (NEAR ZONAL
PARK), GANGA NAGAR, MEERUT.
My client Smt. Preety Garg, W/o Shri Abhishek Garg, R/o L - 465, Shastri
Nagar Meerut has directed me to serve the following notice upon you:1. That my client is the owner of the aforesaid House No. KP - 41 (Near Zonal
Park) Ganga Nagar Meerut.
2. That my client rented out her house (KP - 41 Near Zonal Park, Ganga
Nagar, Meerut)on 01.08.2009 for Rs. 4000/- (Rupees Four Thousand) per
mensem which according to the English Calendar commences on the rst
day and ends on the last day of a month respectively. And since the above
house is newly constructed, Act 13 of 1972 does not apply.
3. That initially for three months you timely paid rent to my client but after
expiry of the rst three months i.e. from November 2009 you stopped
paying rent to my client and also did not pay the electricity bill. When my
client asked for both payment of rent and payment of electricity bill you
stated that you were at that time in some problem or the other and you
would in the following month pay all the balance rent and pending
electricity dues. My client believing you agreed to what you said and also
requested that you without fail pay the electricity dues because in the event
http://www.lawguru.com/legalquestions/indialandlordtenant/noticesmtpreetygargwo529928397/
1/20
11/11/2016
of disconnection of electricity for want of payment of bills, it would be

opprobrious for me. However, as promised by you, you did not pay the rent
to my client.
4. That whenever my client demanded rent from you you eschewed the
same on some pretext or the other. There is a balance of rent from
01/11/2009 to 01/05/2012 which you have not paid despite my client's
repeated requests.
5. That my client has approximately for the past one and a half years
repeatedly asked you to vacate the house and pay the balance rent but you
have been continuously obstinate to pay heed to her requests.
6. That on 14/05/2012, when my client told you that now a lot of time had
elapsed and that you clear all the rent dues and also vacate the house by
giving empty possession to her, you bluntly told my client that she may do
whatever possible by her and that you would neither pay the rent nor
vacate the house.
Therefore, under Section 106 of TP Act, you are hereby informed that within
a period of 30 days after receipt of this notice, you besides paying my client
the entire balance rent for 31 months amounting to Rs. 1,24,000 (Rupees
One Lakh Twenty Four Thousand) along with interest thereon, give vacant
possession of the house to my client. In case you do not hand over the
vacant possession of the house to my client within 30 days, it would be
deemed as unauthorised occupation on your part, in the event of which you
would be liable to pay damages to dthe tune of Rs. 5000/- per mensem. In
the event of not doing so, my client would be forced to initiate legal action
against you in the appropriate court of law and you would be responsible
for all costs and damages thereof. You may preserve this notice. One copy
of this is safe in my oce since it could be presented in the court as and
when so required.
(SIR THE ABOVE NOTICE WAS SENT ON 15/05/2012 UNDER REGD/AD
COVER AND RECEIVED BY SHRI JAIRAJ SINGH ON 17/05/2012)
NOTICE IN REPLY SENT BY SHRI JAI RAJ SINGH S/O SHRI BALBIR SINGH
THROUGH HIS ADVOCATE ON 26/05/2012.
Reply notice by Shri Jai Raj Singh, S/o Shri Balbir Singh, R/o KP-41 Near
Zonal Park, Ganga Nagar, Meerut through Sunil Verma, Advocate, Room No.
63, CCS Law Chambers, Civil Court, Meerut.
TO
2/20
11/11/2016
Shri Sudhir Kumar Sharma, Advocate, Meerut Oce Chamber NO. 152,
Collectorate Compound, Between Election Oce and Jain Milan Piau
Roundabout, Kutchery Meerut.
Sir,
The notice dated 15.05.2012 served through you by your client to my client
is replied as under:
1. That the facts & statements as contained in Para - 1 of your notice are
correct.
2. That the facts and statements contained in Para - 2 of your notice are
false. My client had taken on rent the aforesaid house on a monthly rent of
Rs. 3000/-(Rupees Three Thousand) and also had given Rs. 2,50,000/(Rupees Two Lakh Fifty Thousand) as security and that after one year on
01.04.2009 your client had increased the rent by Rs. 500/- per mensem
taking it to Rs. 3500/- per mensem, which my client has regularly been
paying to your client.
false. My client has right from the beginning till date been paying rent and
the electricity bills.
wrong. My client has never eschewed paying rent on one pretext or the
other and there are no dues on account of rent. Instead my client has given
a security deposit of Rs. 2,50,000/- to your client which is in her possession.
wrong. Your client had never asked my client to vacate the house and infact
my client has come to know of such intention through your notice. My client
has no objection in vacating the house.
false. Your client had not asked my client to vacate the house on 14/5/2012.
Even then, if your client wants my client to vacate the house and take over
empty possession, my client has no objection to the same. Your client may
return the Rs. 2,50,000/- which my client gave as security deposit along
with interest thereon and obtain a receipt for the same.
7. That your client by taking support of false and wrong facts is trying to
establish my client a defaulter and also wants to conscate Rs. 2,50,000/- of
my client.
3/20
11/11/2016
8. That my client has never delayed in paying rent and that my client has
always paid the rent on time and your client has by wrongly blaming my
client made you serve the said notice.
9. That my client has been a bonade tenant and even then if your client
wants my client to vacate the house, my client would vacate the house and
your client shall also have to pay to my client the Sum of Rs. 2,50,000/given as security along with interest thereon. In the event of noncompliance my client would sue your client under Section 406 IPC the costs
and damages of which would be borne by your client.
Therefore, this may be treated as serial wise and para wise reply to the
notice dated 15/05/2012 served by you and that my client is ready to vacate
the aforesaid house of your client and I request that the amount of Rs.
2,50,000/- given as security be refunded along with interest thereon.
On the basis of above, a legal suit was led in the court of the ADJ Meerut
on 03/07/2012 and the same proceeded ex-parte as the tenant, Jairaj Singh
never turned up in the court on any of the hearing dates. The ADJ nally
passed an ex-parte decree on 16.01.2013.
Further progress of the matter is as under:
IN THE COURT OF THE HONOURABLE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE,
COURT No. 10 MEERUT
OBJECTIONS TO THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION No. Year 2013 IN
THE MATTER OF
SMT. PREETY GARG, W/o SHRI ABHISHEK GARG
R/o L - 465 SHASTRI NAGAR MEERUT-----------------------------APPLICANT/PLAINTIFF
Vs
SHRI JAIRAJ SINGH, S/o SHRI BALBIR SINGH
R/o KP - 41 (NEAR ZONAL PARK) GANGA NAGAR MEERUT-------RESPONDENT/DEFENDANT
PERTAINING TO S.C.C. SUIT No. 44 OF 2012
Respected Sir,
By way of this objection application, I object to the very maintainability of
the tenant/respondent's subject Miscellaenous Application No. Year 2013 for
the following reasons/facts:
4/20
11/11/2016
- That the contention of the tenant/respondent that he was not in due

receipt of the summons pertaining to the suit in question is baseless and
false. In this connection, The Hon.Supreme Court in its Judgment Parimal v.
Veena @ Bharti has examined the provisions of Order IX Rule 13 of the Code
of Civil Procedure, 1908. which speaks of conditions under which an ExParte Decree can be set aside. While examining the various judicial
precedents on the provision, the Hon. Supreme Court held as under:
Order IX, R.13 CPC:
The aforesaid provisions read as under:
"Setting aside decree ex-parte against defendant In any case in which a
decree is passed ex-parte against a defendant, he may apply to the Court
by which the decree was passed for an order to set it aside and if he
satises the Court that the summons was not duly served, or that he was
prevented by any sucient cause from appearing when the suit was called
on for hearing, the Court shall make an order setting aside the decree as
against him upon such terms as to costs, payment into Court or otherwise
as it thinks t, and shall appoint a day for proceeding with the suit. Provided
further that no Court shall set aside a decree passed ex-parte merely on the
ground that there has been an irregularity in the service of summons, if it is
satised that the defendant had notice of the date of hearing and had
sucient time to appear and answer the plainti's claim.
- That, it is evident from the above that an ex-parte decree against a
defendant has to be set aside if the party satises the Court that summons
had not been duly served or he was prevented by sucient cause from
appearing when the suit was called on for hearing. However, the court shall
not set aside the said decree on mere irregularity in the service of summons
or in a case where the defendant had notice of the date and sucient time
to appear in the court.
The legislature in its wisdom, made the second proviso, mandatory in
nature. Thus, it is not permissible for the court to allow the application in
utter disregard of the terms and conditions incorporated in the second
proviso herein.
- That the expression "Sucient Cause" is an expression which has been
used in large number of Statutes. The meaning of the word "sucient" is
"adequate" or "enough", in as much as may be necessary to answer the
purpose intended. Therefore, word "sucient" embraces no more than that
which provides a platitude which when the act done suces to accomplish
5/20
11/11/2016
the purpose intended in the facts and circumstances existing in a case and
duly examined from the view point of a reasonable standard of a cautious
man. In this context, "sucient cause" means that party had not acted in a
negligent manner or there was a want of bona de on its part in view of the
facts and circumstances of a case or the party cannot be alleged to have
been "not acting diligently" or "remaining inactive". However, the facts and
circumstances of each case must aord sucient ground to enable the
Court concerned to exercise discretion for the reason that whenever the
court
exercises discretion, it has to be exercised judiciously. (Vide: Ramlal & Ors.
v. Rewa Coalelds Ltd., AIR 1962 SC 361; Sarpanch, Lonand Grampanchayat
v. Ramgiri Gosavi & Anr., AIR 1968 SC 222; Surinder Singh Sibia v. Vijay
Kumar Sood, AIR 1992 SC 1540; and Oriental Aroma Chemical Industries
Limited v. Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation & Another, (2010) 5
SCC 459).
- That, in order to determine the application under Order IX, Rule 13 CPC,
the test that has to be applied is whether the defendant honestly and
sincerely intended to remain present when the suit was called on for
hearing and did his best to do so. Sucient cause is thus the cause for
which the defendant could not be blamed for his absence. Therefore, the
applicant must approach the court with a reasonable defence.
- That, I present a list of the enormous correspondence entered into with the
tenant's employer, Government Machinery (Both State and Central),
scheduled banks, the jurisdictional police station (Where an FIR has also
been lodged against the tenant for utilising forged signatures of my
husband for his own benet) etc. wherein the fact of the subject suit in
progression has explicitly been mentioned. Therefore, the contention of the
tenant that he had no knowledge, despite the fact that the summons had
been duly served, of the subject suit being in progress is utterly baseless
and false. Thus there can be no reason whatsoever for him to contend that
he was prevented by sucient cause from appearing when the suit was
called on for hearing. However, the court shall not set aside the said decree
on mere irregularity in the service of summons or in a case where the
- That the statement of the tenant that I had on the 15th of January 2013
gone to his place of residence i.e. KP - 41 (Near Zonal Park) Ganga Nagar,
Meerut to apprise him of the date of judgment in the subject suit and further
6/20
11/11/2016
threatening him that his household belongings would be got thrown out
after the arrival of the judgment is utterly false and holds no truth
whatsoever.
- That, the application of the tenant/defendant under Order 9 Rule 13 of the
C.P.C. 1908, which is being objected to herein, is liable to be rejected in
view of the judgment given by the Hon. High Court at Allahabad, Uttar
Pradesh in CIVIL REVISION No. 65 of 2013 (A certied copy of which is
attached please). The main points thereto are:
- That the tenant/defendant had led a CIVIL REVISION No. 65 of 2013 in
the Hon. High Court at Allahabad against the decree imparted by the
learned ADJ in SUIT No. 44 of 2012 on 16.01.2013.
- That vide its order dated 21.2.2013, the Hon. High Court at Allahabad
dismissed the revision No. 65 of 2013, giving liberty to the tenant/defendant
to le a restoration application which would be decided on merits.
- That the threshold of ling the restoration application by the
tenant/defendant was 05.03.2013 and it had to be supported with a delay
condonation application.
- That such a restoration application would be maintainable only if the
provisions of Section 17 of P.S.C.C. Act were duly complied with.
- That until decision of a valid restoration application rent/damages fdor use
and occupation at the rate of Rs. 4000/- per month are to be deposited by
7th of each suceeding month which shall immediately be paid to me and
- That the restoration case is not unduly delayed by the
tenant/defendant.Judgment
- That in the instant case since neither the tenant/defendant has deposited
the decretal amount nor moved a previous application in this regard, prior to
his ling an application under Order 9 Rule 13 and since as such has
completely failed to comply with the orders of the Hon. High Court at
Allahabad to comply with the provisions of Section 17 of the P.S.C.C. Act, the
RESTORATION APPLICATION OF THE TENANT/DEFENDANT IS LIABLE TO
BE SUMMARILY REJECTED.
- That in this connection the following judgment of the Hon. Supreme Court
of India has unrestraining eect please:
CASE NO:
Appeal (civil) 5109 of 1999
7/20
11/11/2016
PETITIONER:
KEDARNATH
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
MOHAN LAL KESARWARI & ORS.
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 10/01/2002
BENCH:
R.C. Lahoti & Brijesh Kumar
JUDGMENT:
R.C. Lahoti, J.
The landlord-appellant led a suit for recovery of arrears of rent
and for eviction against the tenant-respondents on the ground
available under Clause (a) of sub-Section (2) of Section 20 of U.P.
Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act,
1972, hereinafter U.P. Urban Buildings Act, for short. A suit of the
nature led by the appellant being triable by a court of small causes,
as provided by the U.P. Civil Laws Amendment Act, 1972 was led
in the Court of Small Causes, Allahabad. On 9.8.1996, the suit came
to be decreed ex-parte. The decree directed the tenant-respondents to
pay an amount of Rs.8500/- as pre-suit arrears of rent and a further
amount calculated at the rate of Rs.250/- per month from the date of
institution of suit to the date of recovery of possession. A decree for
eviction was also passed. The decree was put to execution and on
21.2.1998 the decree-holder obtained possession over the suit
premises with police help. The court amin certied the delivery of
possession to the executing court. On 26.2.1998, the tenantrespondents moved an application under Order 9 Rule 13 of the
C.P.C. seeking setting aside of the ex-parte decree. Neither the
amount due under the decree was deposited nor an application was
8/20
11/11/2016
led seeking direction of the court to give security for the

performance of the decree in lieu of depositing the decretal amount.
On 14.10.1998, arguments were heard on the application under Order
9 Rule 13 of the C.P.C.. The court appointed 16.10.1998 for orders.
It appears that during the course of hearing the appellant
decree-holder pointed out to the court that the application seeking
setting aside of the ex-parte decree was not maintainable and was
liable to be dismissed in limine for non-compliance with proviso to
Section 17 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887
(hereinafter, 'the PSCC Act', for short). On 15.10.1998, the tenantrespondents led an application praying that they may be permitted to
furnish security for payment of decretal amount. The reason assigned
for failure to deposit the amount due under the decree or to furnish
security alongwith the application seeking setting aside of the ex-parte
decree is somewhat oscillating. At one place at is stated that their
advocate had never advised them to deposit the decretal amount as the
advocate himself was not aware of the provision. Then, at another
place, it is stated that the rent was already paid to the landlord decreeholder and there were no arrears required to be deposited. At yet
another place it is stated that their advocate had advised them that on
the application seeking setting aside of the ex-parte decree being
allowed and the suit being restored to le, on the rst date of hearing
the tenant has to deposit the rent in arrears which would be done at
that stage only. Vide order dated 15.11.1998, the learned Judge,
Small Causes, rejected the application led by the tenant-respondent
forming an opinion that ignorance of law was not excusable and the
application under Order 9 Rule 13 of C.P.C. led without complying
with proviso to Section 17 of the PSCC Act was not maintainable.
The tenant-respondents preferred a revision in the court of
9/20
11/11/2016
Additional District Judge, which was allowed. The learned Additional

District Judge vide order dated 22.4.1999, condoned the delay in
moving the application dated 15.10.1998 and directed the trial court to
accept security as proposed and hear and decide the application under
Order 9 Rule 13 of the C.P.C. on merits. The abovesaid revisional
order was put in issue by the landlord-appellant by ling a writ
petition under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution before the High
Court, which has been rejected. The landlord has led this appeal by
special leave.
Mr. Gourab K. Banerji, the learned counsel for the appellant
has made two submissions: rstly, that the proviso to Section 17 of
the Act is mandatory in its character and non-compliance therewith
cannot be condoned; and secondly, assuming that the court has power
to condone the delay in making the deposit or furnishing the security
on the principles deducible from Section 5 of the Limitation Act, even
then no sucient cause was made out for belated oer to make
compliance and in as much as the landlord has already secured
possession of the premises, the tenant-respondents' application was
liable to be rejected.
It is not disputed at the Bar that such a suit as was led by the
landlord-appellant is, in the State of U.P., to be heard and disposed of
by a court of small causes and hence would be governed by the
provisions of the PSCC Act. Section 17 thereof provides as under:
"7. Application of the Code of Civil
Procedure.- (1) The procedure prescribed in the
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, shall save in so far
as is otherwise provided by that Code or by this
Act, be the procedure followed in a Court of Small
Causes in all suits cognizable by it and in all
10/20
11/11/2016
proceedings arising out of such suits:

Provided that an applicant for an order to set
aside a decree passed ex parte or for a review of
judgment shall, at the time of presenting the
application, either deposit in the Court the amount
due from him under the decree or in pursuance of
the judgment, or give such security for the
performance of the decree or compliance with the
judgment as the Court may, on a previous
application made by him in this behalf, have
directed.
(2) Where a person has become liable as surety
under the Proviso to sub-section (1), the security
may be realized in manner provided by Section
145 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908."
It is relevant to note that the proviso to sub-Section (1) of Section 17
has undergone a material change through an amendment brought in by
Act No.IX of 1935. Earlier there were the words- "security to the
satisfaction of the Court for the performance of the decree or
compliance with the judgment, as the court may direct" which have
been deleted and substituted by the present words - "such security for
the performance of the decree or compliance with the judgment as the
Court may, on a previous application made by him in this behalf, have
directed". The Statement of Objects and Reasons for the 1935
amendment was set out as under:
"The Act is designed to remove certain doubts
which have arisen in the interpretation of the
proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 17 of the
Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887. As the
11/20
11/11/2016
section stands, an applicant is required to give

security to the satisfaction of the Court at the time
of presenting his application. It follows that, in
order to ascertain what security satises the Court,
the applicant must already have made an
application in that behalf. There is some doubt
whether the words "as the Court may direct" apply
to the deposit of the whole decretal amount as well
as to the giving of approved security. The Act is
intended to make it clear that the preliminary
application to ascertain what security will satisfy
the Court must be made and decided before the
substantive application for the order to seet aside
the decree, and that it always is open to the
applicant to adopt the alternative course of
depositing the total decretal amount. (Vide
Statement of Objects and Reasons, Gazette of
India, 1935, Pt. V, p.90)."
The object behind establishing Small Cause Courts conferred
with jurisdiction to try summarily such specied category of cases
which need to be and are capable of being disposed of by adopting
summary procedure of trial is to secure an expeditious disposal and to
curtail the lengthy procedure of litigation. Excepting an order for
compensatory costs in respect of false or vexatious claims or
defences or an order imposing ne or directing the arrest or detention
in the civil prison of any person (except where such arrest or detention
is in execution of a decree), orders and decrees of courts of small
causes are not appealable: they are only revisable by the High Court
(or by District Court under Section 115 of CPC as amended in its
12/20
11/11/2016
application to State of U.P.). The jurisdiction to entertain and hear an

application to set aside a decree passed ex-parte or for a review of
judgment by courts of small causes is sought to be qualied and
narrow down by imposing condition as to deposit or giving security
for performance or compliance by enacting proviso to sub-section (1).
Such a provision ts in the scheme of the PSCC Act. Although there
is no authoritative pronouncement by this Court (none brought to our
notice) interpreting the nature and scope of the proviso however, the
learned counsel for the appellant brought to our notice a number of
decisions delivered by the High Courts of Allahabad, Oudh, Madras,
Orissa, Rajasthan and Lahore which have taken the view that the
proviso is mandatory and non-compliance therewith would entail
dismissal of the application because such non-compliance cannot be
condoned or overlooked by the court. They are, to wit : Mohammad
Ramzan Khan Vs. Khubi Khan AIR 1938 Lahore 18 (DB), Murari
Lal Vs. Mohammad Yasin AIR 1939 Allahabad 46, Mt. Shikhani
Vs. Bishambhar Nath AIR 1941 Oudh 103, Jagdamba Prasad & Ors.
Vs. Ram Das Singh & Anr. AIR 1943 Allahabad 288, Roshan Lal
Vs. Brij Lal Amba Lal Shah- AIR 1944 Oudh 104, Vembu Amal Vs.
Esakkia Pillai AIR 1949 Madras 419, Khetra Dolai Vs. Mohan
Bissoyi AIR 1961 Orissa 37, and Dhanna Vs. Arjun Lal AIR 1963
Rajasthan 240. As the present case arises from the State of Uttar
Pradesh, the learned counsel for the appellant cited a series of
decisions delivered by Allahabad High Court so as to show the view
of the law being consistently taken there. These are : Krishan Kumar
Vs. Hakim Mohd. 1978 ALJ 738, Sharif Vs. Suresh Chand & Ors.
1979 AWC 256, Roop Basant Vs. Durga Prasad & Anr. 1983 1
ARC 565, Mohd. Islam Vs. Faquir Mohammad 1985 1 ARC 54,
Krishan Chandra Seth Vs. Dr. K.P. Agarwal & Anr. - 1988 1 ARC
13/20
11/11/2016
310, Mamta Sharma Vs. Hari Shankar Srivastava & Ors.- 1988 1
ARC 341, Mohd. Yasin Vs. Jai Prakash 1988 2 ARC 575,
Purshottam Vs. Special Additional Sessions Judge, Mathura & Ors.
1991 2 ARC 129, Ram Chandra (deceased L.Rs.) & Ors. Vs. IXth
Additional District Judge, Varanasi & Ors.- AIR 1991 Allahabad 223,
Sagir Khan Vs. The District Judge, Farrukhabad & Ors. - 1996 27
ALR 540, Mohammad Nasem Vs. Third Additional District Judge,
Faizabad & Ors. AIR 1998 Allahabad 125, and Beena Khare Vs.
VIIIth Additional District Judge, Allahabad & Anr. 2000 2 ARC
616.
The learned counsel for the respondent brought to our notice
Surendra Nath Mittal Vs. Dayanand Swarup and Anr. AIR 1987
Allahabad 132, Chigurupalli Suryanarayana Vs. The
Amadalavalasa Co-operative Agricultural Industrial Society Ltd.
AIR 1975 A.P. 196 and Tarachand Hirachand Porwal Vs. Durappa
Tavanappa Patravali AIR 1943 Bombay 237. All the three
decisions are single Bench decisions. Suce it to observe that the
rst two decisions are more or less ad hoc decisions which do not
notice other decisions and the general trend of judicial opinion. The
view propounded therein does not appeal to us. The Bombay decision
does not lay down any general proposition of law and proceeds on its
own facts.
A bare reading of the provision shows that the legislature have
chosen to couch the language of the proviso in a mandatory form and
we see no reason to interpret, construe and hold the nature of the
proviso as directory. An application seeking to set aside an ex-parte
decree passed by a Court of Small Causes or for a review of its
judgment must be accompanied by a deposit in the court of the
amount due from the applicant under the decree or in pursuance of the
14/20
11/11/2016
judgment. The provision as to deposit can be dispensed with by the

court in its discretion subject to a previous application by the
applicant seeking direction of the court for leave to furnish security
and the nature thereof. The proviso does not provide for the extent of
time by which such application for dispensation may be led. We
think that it may be led at any time up to the time of presentation of
application for setting aside ex-parte decree or for review and the
Court may treat it as a previous application. The obligation of the
applicant is to move a previous application for dispensation. It is then
for the court to make a prompt order. The delay on the part of the
court in passing an appropriate order would not be held against the
applicant because none can be made to suer for the fault of the court.
In the case at hand, the application for setting aside ex parte
decree was not accompanied by deposit in the court of the amount due
and payable by the applicant under the decree.The applicant also did
not move any application for dispensing with deposit and seeking
leave of the court for furnishing such security for the performance of
the decree as the court may have directed. The application for setting
aside the decree was therefore incompetent. It could not have been
entertained and allowed.
The trial court was therefore right in rejecting the application.
The District Judge in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction could not
have interfered with the order of the trial court. The illegality in
exercise of jurisdiction by the District Court disposing of the revision
petition was brought to notice of the High Court and it was a t case
where the High Court ought to have in exercise of its supervisory
jurisdiction set aside the order of the District Court by holding the
application led by the respondent as incompetent and hence not
entertainable. We need not examine the other question whether a
15/20
11/11/2016
sucient cause for condoning the delay in moving the application for
leave of the court to furnish security for performance was made out or
not and whether such an application moved at a highly belated stage
and hence not being a 'previous application' was at all entertainable
or not.
The appeal is allowed.The impugned orders of the District
Court and the High Court respectively dated 22.4.1999 and 18.5.1999
are set aside and the order of the trial court dated 15.11.1998 is
restored. No order as to the costs.
..........J
( R.C. LAHOTI )
...J
( BRIJESH KUMAR )
January 10, 2002
2012 indiac
- That the above judgment has been a landmark judgment in similar cases
as under:
1. CIVIL WRIT PETITION No. 52851 of 2008 (Dev Pal alias Guddu Mistri Vs.
Jalaj Singh) in Court No. 7 of the Hon. High Court of Judicature at
Allahabdad
2. CIVIL REVISION No. 15 of 2010 (Dhirendra Kumar Agarwal Vs. Smt.
Jannatun Nisha) in Reserved/Court No. 4 of the Hon. High Court of
Judicature at Allahabad. Herein, interalia, it has been categorically stated:
- That the proviso to Section 17 of the P.S.C.C. Act is mandatory.
- That the application seeking to set aside a decree to review must be
accompanied by a deposit of decretal amount in court
- That the proviso does not provide for the extension of time to make the
deposit or furnish security subsequently.
3. WRIT - C No. - 25524 of 2012 (Ramji Thakkar @ Ramesh Thakkar Vs. DJ,
Kanpur Nagar and Others) in Court No. 33 of the Hon. High Court of
Judicature at Allahabad.
16/20
11/11/2016
In view of the foregoing facts, Sir, it is requested that since the Restoration
Application of the tenant/defendant is not maintainable, it may be
SUMMARILY BE REJECTED PLEASE AND AS PRAYED THE AMIN MAY
KINDLY BE ORDERED TO DO THE NEEDFUL ALONG WITH POLICE FORCE
SO THAT I GET VACANT POSSESSION OF MY PROPERTY.
It is proposed to le the above objection in the Hon. Court at Meerut
I may kindly be advised on the merits and demerits of the case.
Asked on 3/06/13, 8:36 am
2 Answer from Attorneys

Jayesh Desai
(/answers/atty_prole/view_attorney_prole/Desaij)
Jayesh Desai
(/answers/atty_prole/view_attorney_prole/Desaij)
You must consult a lawyer, to answer a query which has long narration and facts
involved is not possible here.
Answered on 3/07/13, 9:00 am
Related Questions & Answers

WITH DUE RESPECT IWOULD LIKE TO INFORM YOU.THAT Now my age is 40 years,
(... (/legal-questions/india-landlord-tenant/due-respect-iwould-inform-youthatAsked 3/04/13, 5:38 pm in India
Landlord & Tenants
My grand pa have studio apartment in south mubai mahaim west , he is not alive
yet... (/legal-questions/india-landlord-tenant/grand-pa-studio-apartment-southAsked 3/03/13, 2:04 am in India
Landlord & Tenants
I m at owner. I m give my at to one of the tenent for 11 month agreement. Now...

(/legal-questions/india-landlord-tenant/m-at-owner-give-tenent-306562574/)
Asked 3/02/13, 9:45 am in India
Landlord & Tenants
Now my age is 40 years, ( male--santanu banerjee ) my sister is 30 yrs, father is 67...

(/legal-questions/india-landlord-tenant/age-years-malesantanu-banerjee-sisterAsked 3/02/13, 7:45 am in India
Landlord & Tenants
17/20
11/11/2016
Now my age is 40 years, ( male--santanu banerjee ) my sister is 30 yrs, father is 67...

(/legal-questions/india-landlord-tenant/age-years-malesantanu-banerjee-sisterAsked 3/01/13, 6:23 pm in India
Landlord & Tenants
More Landlord & Tenants questions and answers in India (/answers/search/results/india/India/landlordtenant/)
Get Free Legal Advice

10,200 active attorneys ready to answer your legal questions today.
Type your question here
Ask Free Legal Question
Landlord & Tenants Legal Forms

Browse and download our attorneyprepared and up-to-date legal forms
from $4.99
Commercial Lease Agreements (http://www.ndlegalforms.com/forms/commercial-leaseagreements/)
18/20
11/11/2016
Residential Lease Agreements (http://www.ndlegalforms.com/forms/residential-leases/)

Residential Rental Applications (http://www.ndlegalforms.com/forms/residential-rentalapplications/)
Find a Legal Form (http://www.ndlegalforms.com/forms/)
Featured Attorneys
Michael Hendrickson
(/answers/atty_prole/view_attorney_p
(/answers/atty_prole/view_attorney_prole/merich)
Michael E. Hendrickson
Arlington, VA
Mark Dunn
(/answers/atty_prole/view_attorney_prole/markdunn)
Mark D. Dunn
Plano, TX
Rachel Hunter
(/answers/atty_prole/view_attorney_prole/rachel44)
Hunter Law Oce

Cary, NC
Find An Attorney (/answers/legal_directory/)

Adsby Google
EvictionNoticetoTenant
LandlordTenantCourt
Are you an Attorney?
Earn additional revenue and grow

your business.
Join LawGuru Now (/answers/atty_prole/apply/)
(https://www.facebook.com/LawGuru)
(https://www.twitter.com/LawGuru)
(https://plus.google.com/u/0/113928878715367071671)
19/20
11/11/2016
WebsiteBroker, Inc.
73700 Dinah Shore Dr. Suite 104, Palm Desert, California 92211
20/20

Lease-Deed Agri Land

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Lease-Deed Agri Land

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

11/11/2016

Legal Question in Landlord & Tenant Law

of disconnection of electricity for want of payment of bills, it would be

- That the contention of the tenant/respondent that he was not in due

led seeking direction of the court to give security for the

Additional District Judge, which was allowed. The learned Additional

proceedings arising out of such suits:

section stands, an applicant is required to give

application to State of U.P.). The jurisdiction to entertain and hear an

judgment. The provision as to deposit can be dispensed with by the

2 Answer from Attorneys

Answered on 3/07/13, 9:00 am

Related Questions & Answers

Landlord & Tenants

Landlord & Tenants

I m at owner. I m give my at to one of the tenent for 11 month agreement. Now...

Landlord & Tenants

Now my age is 40 years, ( male--santanu banerjee ) my sister is 30 yrs, father is 67...

Landlord & Tenants

Now my age is 40 years, ( male--santanu banerjee ) my sister is 30 yrs, father is 67...

Landlord & Tenants

More Landlord & Tenants questions and answers in India (/answers/search/results/india/India/landlordtenant/)

Get Free Legal Advice

Ask Free Legal Question

Landlord & Tenants Legal Forms

Residential Lease Agreements (http://www.ndlegalforms.com/forms/residential-leases/)

Find a Legal Form (http://www.ndlegalforms.com/forms/)

Hunter Law Oce

Find An Attorney (/answers/legal_directory/)

Are you an Attorney?

Earn additional revenue and grow

Join LawGuru Now (/answers/atty_prole/apply/)

Potrebbero piacerti anche