Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

NASIRUDDIN versus ZAMEEL AHMAD ANSARI & ANOTHER

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Nasiruddin v. Zameel Ahmad Ansari & Another - WRIT - A No. 2556 of 2005 [2005] RD-AH 6662 (30 November 2005)

 

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. 4                                        AFR

Writ Petition No.  2556 of 2005

Nasiruddin                                                        Petitioner

                                      Vs.

Zameel Ahmad Ansari & another.                Respondents

                                                                                                                                                                                ***************

Hon. Vikram Nath,

The petitioner is a tenant of the premises in dispute. There  being default in payment of rent, the landlord filed SCC Suit No. 15 of 2003 in the court of Judge Small Causes Court, Bijnor. The petitioner filed an application (paper no. 34C) praying therein that the question of jurisdiction of the Judge Small Causes Court be determined first as Smt. Saeeda Begum had executed a registered agreement of sale  on 19.07.2000 in his favour after taking advance amount of Rs. 50,000/- out of total sale consideration of Rs. 1,25,000/-. It may be noticed that Smt. Saeeda Begum has not filed the suit for arrears of rent and ejectment, while the suit has been filed by Zameel Ahmad Ansari and Mohd. Iqbal Mansoor claiming themselves to be owner and land lord. This application of the tenant petitioner was opposed by the land lord and objection to the same was filed. The Trial Court vide order dated 17.08.2004 came to the conclusion that the title does not stand transferred in the petitioner tenant merely on the basis of the agreement to sell and, therefore, there is no dispute of title involved and accordingly rejected the application. The petitioner preferred a revision against the said order being SCC Revision No. 28 of 2004. The said revision has also been dismissed by the District Judge, Bijnor, vide judgment dated 09.12.2004. Aggrieved by the same the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.

I have heard Sri Ramesh Kumar Shukla learned counsel for the petitioner and have also perused the record.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that where registered agreement to sell has been executed and on its basis the alleged purchaser has entered into possession, and substantial amount of sale consideration has been passed on the rights of the petitioner would be virtually that of the owner and, therefore, their did arise of a bona fide dispute with regard to the title. He has placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of R. Kanthimathi vs. Mrs. Beatrice Xavier reported in 2002 (1) ARC 101. The said judgment of the Apex Court does not apply to the facts of the present case in as much as in the said case it was the land lord who had executed the registered agreement to sell after taking substantial amount of the sale consideration and in such circumstances the Apex Court had observed that the relationship of  landlord and tenant to be that purchaser and seller and after execution of agreement to sell the relationship of land lord and tenant between them ceases and fresh rights and obligation flow from the said agreement. In the present case the agreement to sell has been executed by Smt. Saeeda Begum and not by the land lords who had filed the suit and secondly less than 50% of the sale consideration had been passed, which can not be said to be  substantial part of the sale consideration.

In this view of the matter, I do not find any error in the judgment of the Court's below.  The petition lacks merit and is, accordingly dismissed.    

Dt. 30.11.2005

v.k.updh. (147)


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.