Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

ABDUL RASHEED versus UPPER DISTRICT JUDGE, VARANASI & ANOTHER

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Abdul Rasheed v. Upper District Judge, Varanasi & Another - WRIT - A No. 37247 of 2001 [2006] RD-AH 20880 (12 December 2006)

 

This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD

Hon'ble Rakesh Tiwari, J

Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.

This is tenant's petition. The case of the petitioner is that he is tenant of a shop at the ground floor in house no. 44/1 Eastern Bazar Mughal Sarai district Chadauli. The landlord- respondent no. 2 refused to give receipts for the months December 1996 and January, 1997 and also refused to accept rent for the months February 1997 to April, 1997 and thereafter filed suit for recovery of rent and eviction of the petitioner from the shop, in dispute. The suit of the landlord was decreed and the revision filed against the judgment and decree of the trial court has also been dismissed by the revisional Court vide impugned judgment and order dated 28.8.2000.

Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgments, the petitioner has invoked the writ jurisdiction by means of the instant writ petition.

Trial Court has recorded a specific finding that the petitioner was defaulter in payment of Court fee and Advocate's fee.  The relevant finding in this regard is as under :-

"16. vkt izfroknh ds rjQ ls ,d Vs.Mj 500@% #Ik;s dk ftlesa cdk;k U;k; 'kqYd o vf/koDrk dh Qhl tek djusa ds lEcU/k esa gS izfroknh Onkjk U;k;ky; esa izLrqr fd;k gS tks U;k;ky; ds fopkj esa fdlh Hkh izdkj izFke lquokbZ dk fnu ugha gS cfYd mHk;I{k dh cgl lquus ds Ik'pkr Ik=koyh cgl esa fu;r gqbZ mlds Ik'pkr izfroknh usa ;g /kujkf'k fu.kZ; dh frfFk tek dh gS tks fdlh Hkh izdkj ls izFke lquokbZ ds fnu ugha ekuk tk ldrk ,slh fLFkfr esa bl tek /kujkf'k dks fdlh Hkh izdkj ls /kkjk 20 ¼4½ dh ifjf/k esa ugha ekuk tk ldrk bl tek ds ckn Hkh 74-50 iSlk de tek gS A"

Revisional Court has also affirmed the finding of the trial Court.  The relevant finding recorded by the revisional Court in this regard is as under:-

"...bl lUnHkZ esa izfroknh usa fuf.kZr fof/k 1995 ,-lh-ts ist 292 eksgu vkfn cuke r`rh; vij ftyk tt okjk.klh vkfn dk gokyk fn;k gS] ftlesa ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; usa ;g vo/kkfjr fd;k gS fd tgkW cgaqr lq{e deh #Ik;k tek djusa esa gS ogkW mls utjvUnkt fd;k tk;sxk vkSj /kkjk 20 ¼4½ dk ykHk fdjk;snkj dks feysxk A mDr fuf.kZr fof/k esa 14@% #Ik;k ekfld fdjk;k iz'uxr ifjlj dk jgk vkSj 7-47@& #Ik;s dh deh jsUV tek djusa esa fdjk;snkj usa fd;k Fkk A mDr ekeysa esa ek= 7-47@& #Ik;s dh deh Fkh= ftldks ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; usa cgaqr lq{e deh crk;k] tcfd bl ekeysa esa dqy 574-50#Ik;s dh deh gS] tks lq{e deh dh Js.kh esa ugha yk;k tk ldrk vr% esja fopkj ls bl fu.kZ; fof/k dk ykHk izfroknh dks ugha fn;k tk ldrk blds foijhr foi{kh@oknh dh vksj ls 1998 ,-MCyw-lh-¼,u-vks-lh-½2-116 ubeqnnhu cuke lire vij ftyk tt vkxjk vkfn dk gokyk fn;k x;k gS] ftlesa ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; bykgkckn usa ;g vo/kkfjr fd;k gS fd vf/kfu;e la[;k 13 lu 1992 fdjk;snkj ds Ik{k esa mnkjrk ls fd;k tkuk pkfg, vkSj pkgs ftruh mnkjrk dh tk;s] ysfdu vf/kfu;e esa fn;s x;s Li"V izkfo/kkuksa dh vuns[kh ugha dh tkuh pkfg, vkSj fdjk;snkj dks U;k;ky; dks laUrq"V djuk gksxk fd tks izkfo/kku fn;s x;s gSa mu Li"V izkfo/kkuksa dk vuqikyu mlus fd;k gSA ;fn og ,slk ugha djrk rks bldk ykHk mls ugha feysxk bl rjg ;fn /kkjk 20 ¼4½ ds izkfo/kku ds vuqlkj lEiw.kZ /kujkf'k tek ugha dh xbZ vkSj tek /kujkf'k esa Ik;kZIr deh gS rks /kkjk 20 ¼4½ dk ykHk fdjk;snkj ugha ik

ldrk A"

`Thus, the courts below have recorded concurrent findings of fact and this petition is liable to be dismissed for the simple reason that the Courts below have found that there was shortfall of Rs.574.50P. In catena of decisions, Hon'ble the Apex Court has held that payment of court fee and Advocate's fee is mandatory.

The question regarding service of notice being question of fact having been decided against the petitioner by the Courts below, the same does also not require any interference in the writ jurisdiction.

No illegality or infirmity could be pointed out in the orders impugned warranting interference in the writ jurisdiction.

Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.   The petitioner-tenant is directed to hand over peaceful possession of the accommodation, in dispute to the landlord within a period of one month from today failing which he shall be liable to be evicted by coercive process, in accordance with law, with the aid of local Police. No order as to costs.

Dated 12.12.2006

kkb


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.