High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Balgovind Bhadauriya v. Smt. Ram Rati Agarwal & Others - WRIT - A No. 43732 of 2001  RD-AH 14625 (29 August 2006)
Court no. 7
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 43732 of 2001
Balgovind Bhadauriya Vs. Smt. Ram Rati Agarwal
Hon'ble Rakesh Tiwari, J
Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.
Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is tenant in a residential house situate in Mohalla Aliganj, District Banda on rent at the rate of Rs.200/- per month of which Hari Krishna Agarwal, the predecessor-in-interest of the respondent was landlord and after his death the respondents have become its landlord.
The respondents filed SCC Suit No. 17 of 1994 for arrears of rent and eviction against the petitioner before the trial Court. The petitioner contested the suit by filing written statement, oral and documentary evidence. The trial Court decreed the suit by order dated 26.10.2000.
Aggrieved by the aforesaid order dated 26.10.2000 of the trial Court the petitioner preferred S.C.C. Revision No. 61 of 1999 before the Revisional Court. By its order dated 10.5.2000 the Revisional Court remanded the case to the trial Court for deciding issue no.1 relating to validity of notice but confirmed trial Court's findings on other issues.
The petitioner then filed Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 33671 of 2001 before this Court challenging the validity and correctness of the order dated 10.5.2000 passed by the Revisional Court which was dismissed vide order dated 3rd August, 2000 passed by this Court. Since the writ petition was dismissed and there was no interim order in that writ petition staying the further proceedings of the trial, the trial Court proceeded with the matter and decided issue no.1 vide order-dated 11.12.2000 against the petitioner decreeing the suit.
Aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 11.12.2000, the petitioner preferred S.C.C. Revision No. 3 of 2001 which too was dismissed by order dated 13.9.2001.
Feeling aggrieved the petitioner has come in this writ petition against the order and findings dated 11.12.2000 passed by the Judge Small Causes Court and the order dated 13.9.2001 passed by the Revisional Court under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Causes Courts Act.
The counsel for the petitioner could not point out any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order. It appears that both the Courts below have decreed the suit against the petitioner. Earlier Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 33671 of 2000 filed by the petitioner on same facts and grounds was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 3rd August, 2000. The facts and grounds of this writ petition are similar to that of Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 33671 of 2000. The matter already stands concluded and the counsel for the petitioner has not been able to point out any new points in his argument. In the circumstances, no case for interference is made out.
For the reasons stated above, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to cost.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.