High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Satendra Arora & Others v. Smt. Shanti Devi & Others - CIVIL REVISION No. 348 of 2005  RD-AH 7640 (12 April 2006)
Civil Revision No. 348 Of 2005.
Satendra Arora and others .....Defendants/Revisionists.
Smt. Shanti Devi Sharma
and another ........Plaintiff/Respondents.
Hon'ble Anjani Kumar, J.
This revision filed by the revisionist under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887 challenges the judgement and order dated 16.9.2005 passed by the Judge, Small Cause Courts whereby the suit filed by the landlord-respondent for recovery of the arrears of rent and damages and eviction of the revisionist from the accommodation in dispute is decreed. The plaintiff filed a suit with the allegation that the revisionist-defendant is the tenant of the accommodation in dispute which is a shop and the rent was Rs. 700/- per month prior to 6.4.1997 thereafter the same was enhanced to Rs. 900/- per month. It is further agreed that the tenant would vacate the accommodation in dispute by October, 1997 and will hand over the vacant possession of the shop to the plaintiff and rent deed was executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff. Since the defendant has failed to pay the rent with effect from 1.5.1997 to 30.9.1997 at the rate of Rs. 700/- per month and thereafter with effect from 1.10.1997 at the rate of Rs. 900/- per month apart from house and water tax. The plaintiffs served the notice on defendants on 30.11.2000 demanding the arrears of rent after terminating the tenancy which was sent by the registered post on 2.12.2000 and the same was received by defendant on 18.12.2001 but defendant in spite of receiving the notice neither vacated the house nor paid arrears of rent and house and water tax. At the time of notice, the defendant was in arrears of more than four months rent. The defendant after one month of receipt of the aforesaid notice, neither paid the arrears of rent nor vacated the premises, thus, committed default in payment therefore, he is liable to be evicted. The further allegation was that the defendant has started a heavy electric generator and due to running of the generator, the building is damaged and there are cracks on the walls which has resulted into material damages and therefore, the defendant is liable to be evicted on this ground also. Thus, he filed the present suit for the aforesaid relief. The defendant contested the suit and denied that he is in arrears of rent. The defendant also stated that the rate of rent as alleged by the plaintiff, is not correct and in fact, the rate of rent was Rs. 125/- per month which has been enhanced to Rs. 160/- per month w.e.f. 1991 and the current rate of rent is the same. It is further alleged that since the relationship between the plaintiff and defendant was cordial, therefore, neither the landlord issued the receipt of the rent nor the same was asked for by the tenant. With regard to the alleged rent note, it is stated that no rent note was ever executed by the defendant as dated 6.7.1997 in any view of the matter, the defendant is entitled for the benefit of the provisions of Section 20 (4) of the Act No. 13 of 1972. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the trial court formulated the following points for decision:
1. whether the rent of the premises in question is Rs 700/- per month for the period with effect from 1.5.1997 to 30.9.1997 and thereafter with effect from 1.10.1997 is Rs. 900/- per month as alleged by the plaintiff ?
2. whether the defendant is in arrears of rent with effect from 1.4.1998 to 18.1.2001 and plaintiff is entitled to get the same ?
3. whether the defendant has committed default in payment of rent if so, what is its effect ?
4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to receive the alleged arrears of rent and defendant is liable to be evicted ?
5. Whether the defendant is entitled for the benefit of Section 20 (4) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 ?
6. Whether a valid notice has been served upon the defendant or not ?
The trial court after considering the relevant case of the parties and discussing the evidence on record found that the rate of rent according to the rent note upto 30.9.1997 was Rs. 700/- per month and thereafter was Rs. 900/- per month. The trial court also recorded finding that the defendant has committed default in payment of rent and has not paid arrears of rent after due service of the notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act and thus, made himself liable for eviction. Thus, trial court decreed the suit. Aggrieved thereby the defendant has approached this Court by means of filing this revision under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause courts Act, 1887.
From the perusal of the grounds raised in the present revision and from the argument advanced on behalf of the counsel for the revisionist it appears that in fact, learned counsel for the revisionist has ventured to submitted that this Court should enter into finding recorded by the trial court as if, this revision is a regular first appeal. To me it appears that in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887, it is not permissible and the argument regarding re-appreciation of the evidence on record b this Court, therefore, deserves to be rejected and is hereby rejected. A bare perusal of the proviso to Section 25 of the Act demonstrates such inquiry in exercise of revisional jurisdiction under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act is not permissible. Nothing has been brought to the notice of this court which may warrant an interference by this court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887.
In view of what has been stated above, this revision has no force and is dismissed.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.