Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

ZAFAR versus MOHD. SALEEM

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Zafar v. Mohd. Saleem - WRIT - A No. 24853 of 2006 [2006] RD-AH 9091 (5 May 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

(Court No. 51)

Civil Misc. Writ petition No. 24853 of 2006

Zafar Versus Mohd Saleem

Hon'ble S.U.Khan J

Respondent has filed suit for eviction against the petitioner alleging therein that respondent is landlord and petitioner is tenant. Property in dispute is described as house No. 173/1. Respondent has pleaded that he purchased the property in dispute from its previous owner landlady Sitara Begum. Suit has been registered as SCC Suit No. 13 of 2003 on the file of JSCC Meerut.  According to the learned counsel for the petitioner initially property belonged to Smt Pushpa who sold the same to another person and thereafter several sale deeds were executed in respect of the property in dispute and ultimately it was purchased by respondent. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner during pendency of the suit plaintiff respondent got a Titamma (corrigendum or addenda) executed and house No. 173/1 was included in the titamma while original sale deed was only in respect of house No. 173. Petitioner contended before the trial court that plaintiff could be treated to be landlord since the date of execution and registration of Titamma (corrigendum) hence notice of termination of tenancy given by him before that was not valid. Petitioner filed application under section 23 of Provincial Small Causes Courts Act (PSCC ACT) for return of plaint for filing before Civil Court. The said application was rejected by JSCC Meerut through judgement and order dated 13.12.2004. Against the said order petitioner filed SCC Revision No. 63 of 2005 which was dismissed by A.D.J Court No.3 Meerut through judgement and order dated 23.2.2006, hence this writ petition. Revisional court also imposed cost of Rs. 700/-

In my opinion the plea which petitioner wants to raise may very well be decided in SCC suit itself and application under section 23 PSCC Act filed by the petitioner was rightly rejected by the courts below. It was not a case of return of plaint.

Accordingly writ petition is dismissed but it is directed that the aforesaid plea of the tenant shall be decided by the trial court while deciding the suit finally. Cost of Rs. 700/- imposed by the revisional court is reduced by 50%. However in this regard if respondent has got any objection then he is at liberty to apply for recall of this order.

Waqar

5.5.2006


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.