High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Ram Dutt v. Tej Veer Gupta And Another - WRIT - A No. 34690 of 2006  RD-AH 11441 (13 July 2006)
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 34690 of 2006
Tej Veer Gupta & Another...Respondents
Hon'ble Krishna Murari,J.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
This is a tenant's petition challenging the judgment and decree dated 23.4.2004 passed by Judge Small Cause Court decreeing the suit for eviction and arrears of rent and the judgment dated 24.4.2006 dismissing the revision challenging the said decree.
The facts are that respondents-landlords filed JSCC Suit for eviction and arrears of rent. The suit was contested by the defendant-petitioner on the ground inter alia that rate of rent was only Rs. 20/- and not Rs. 40/- as claimed by the landlords. There was no default in payment of rent and as such there was no cause of action. During the pendency of the proceedings before the trial court, an application, filed by the tenant-petitioner for comparison of the specimen signature of the respondent-landlord along with disputed signatures on certain money order receipts, was rejected against which he had approached this Court by filing writ petition no. 52507 of 2003. The said writ petition was dismissed vide order dated 17.12.2003 with liberty to the tenant- petitioner to challenge the said order in revision which he may file in case the suit is decided against him.
The judge small causes court vide judgment dated 23.4.2004 decreed the suit on the finding that the rate of rent was Rs. 40/- per month and the petitioner is a defaulter and his tenancy stands terminated by a valid notice. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner filed a revision. The revisional Court, confirming the finding of the trial Court, dismissed the revision vide judgment 24.4.2006.
It has been vehemently urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner that revisional court has illegally failed to consider that the trial Court had wrongly rejected the application for comparing the signature of the landlord and thus the judgment is vitiated. It has further been urged that rate of rent has wrongly been determined at the rate of Rs.40/- per moth whereas the petitioner proved by cogent evidence that it was only Rs.20/- per month.
Learned counsel for the respondents has tried to justify the impugned judgments.
I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
In so far as first argument advanced on behalf of the petitioner is concerned, learned counsel has failed to point out that any challenge was made to the order of Prescribed Authority rejecting his application for comparison of the signature of landlord. This Court in writ petition No. 52507 of 2003 had given liberty to challenge the said order in revision. Thus it was for the petitioner to have challenged the same. Having failed to do so himself it is now not open to him to contend that revisional order is vitiated on that account.
In so far as, the rate of rent is concerned, the trial Court after analyzing the evidence brought on record has recorded a finding that the rate was Rs.40 per month. The same finding has been confirmed by the revisional court. With regard to default in payment of rent, both the Courts below have recorded a categorical finding that rent with effect from January, 1996 to June, 1997 has not been paid by the tenant-petitioner and thus he is a defaulter. The said findings are based on proper appraisal of entire evidence brought on record. The revisional court has further held that even in case the rate of rent is taken to be Rs.20/- per month even then the petitioner is a defaulter as there is no evidence to establish that rent for the period January 1996 to June 1997 has been paid or deposited by him.
It is well-settled that finding of fact recorded by the fact finding Courts based on proper appraisal of evidence is not open to interference by this Court while exercising jurisdiction conferred by Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
The writ petition is concluded by finding of fact recorded by two Courts below, which does not warrant any interference by this Court. The writ petition accordingly fails and is dismissed.
After pronouncement of the aforesaid judgment, a request has been made by the learned counsel for the petitioner to grant some time to vacate the premises in dispute.
Considering the facts and circumstances, the tenant-petitioner is allowed six months' time to vacate the premises in dispute, subject to the following conditions;
(i) He shall file an undertaking within a period of three weeks from today before the Court below to hand over vacant and peaceful possession of the premises in dispute to the respondents-landlord on or before expiry of six months.
(ii) He shall deposit entire decretal amount along with six months rent calculated at the rate of Rs.40/- per month in advance within a period of three weeks from today.
(iii) On failure on the part of the tenant-petitioner to comply with the aforesaid conditions, he shall be evicted forthwith through the process of the Court.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.