High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Smt. Tamizan And Others v. Sri Abdul Qadir And Others - WRIT - A No. 19285 of 2006  RD-AH 7890 (18 April 2006)
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 19285 of 2006
Smt. Tamizan & others v. Sri Abdul Qadir & others
Hon'ble Krishna Murari, J.
Heard Sri S.C.Kesharwani, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri V.D.Agrawal, learned counsel for the respondents.
The facts are that landlord (now represented by the respondents) filed SCC suit for arrears of rent and ejectment of the tenants (now represented by the petitioners). The suit was contested inter-alia on the ground that plaintiff was not the landlord and there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties, the land on which the house is constructed belong to Mohammad Saddiq and Amanutullah who executed a permanent lease dated 13.3.1944 in favour of their father and in accordance with the terms and conditions their father constructed a house and was paying the lease rent. It was pleaded that after death of Mohammad Saddiq and Amanutullah the rent was being paid to Shabbir son of Amanutullah and there was no arrears.
The Judge, Small Causes Court vide judgment dated 28.7.1999 decreed the suit. Feeling aggrieved the respondent filed a revision which has been dismissed vide impugned judgment dated 7.1.2006.
It has been urged by learned counsel for the petitioners that in view of permanent lease executed by the original owners of the land and construction having been made in accordance with the terms of the lease deed, the petitioners have wrongly been held to be tenants and were not liable to ejectment. It has further been urged that plaintiff was not the landlord and both the courts have committed a grave illegality in holding that there was relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties.
In reply, learned counsel for the respondents has tried to justify the impugned order.
I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.
On the basis of oral as well as documentary evidence brought on record the trial court has recorded a finding that after death of original owners, plaintiffs Rashidan and Shabbir became co-landlords. Shabbir transferred his share in favour of the plaintiff who became the sole landlord. On the basis of the pleadings and evidence brought on record that the petitioners-tenants were paying rent to Shabbir, it was held that the petitioners are the tenants on monthly rent of Rs.20/-. The trial court further held that the petitioners-tenants have failed to prove that any lease deed dated 13.3.1944, as alleged by them, was executed in favour of their father. The trial court also held that notice terminating the tenancy has been proved in accordance with law and is a valid notice and the petitioners-tenants were in arrears of rent. The same findings have been confirmed by the rivisional court.
It is well settled that finding of facts recorded by the court below based on proper appraisal of evidence and are not liable to be interfered with by this court in exercise of writ jurisdiction conferred by Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Even during the course of argument learned counsel for the petitioners has failed to point out any such illegality in the findings which may warrant any interference by this court.
The writ petition accordingly, fails and is dismissed.
No order as to costs.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.