High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Ram Singh v. State Of U.P. And Others - WRIT - C No. 56447 of 2006  RD-AH 17564 (11 October 2006)
Hon'ble Rakesh Tiwari, J
Heard counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.
The petitioner is tenant of premises no. 2/280, Namner, Agra. She claims that notice dated 26.10.1998 issued by Sri M.P. Singh, Advocate, Civil Court Agra was received by her on 28.10.1998 claiming himself to be landlord of the accommodation, in dispute, and that the petitioner is his tenant on a monthly rent of Rs.250/- and taxes. Through her reply dated 30.101998 to the notice dated 26.10.1998, she denied the allegations contained in the notice and stated that, in fact, Sri shiv Narayan is the landlord of the disputed accommodation and she is tenant on a monthly rent of Rs.100/- with taxes. She also claimed that she has been continuously paying rent to Sri shiv Naryan and his son Sri Dharmendra Singh.
Thereafter, S.C.C. suit no. 162 of 1998 was filed by the respondent no. 3 for arrears of rent, future damages @ Rs.20/- per day and ejectment of the petitioner.
The suit was contested by the petitioner by filing written statement denying the plaint allegations and disputing the title of respondent no. 3 as landlord.
An amendment application for amendment in theplaint was filed by respondent no. 3 on 2.9.1999, which was allowed by Judge, Small Causes Court, Agra on payment of cost of Rs.50/- to the petitioner.
The petitioner also filed additional written statement on 25.101999. Statement of respondent no. 3 as P.W.1 was recorded on 28.3.2000 and the suit was decreed, ex parte, by judgment and decree dated 21.7.200 passed by Judge, Small Causes Court, Agra. The petitioner filed application under Order IX Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure supported by an affidavit for setting aside the ex parte decree dated 21.7.2000, which was rejected vide order dated 22.3.2002 by the respondent no. 2.
Aggrieved, the petitioner filed S.C.C Revision no. 25 of 2005 together with an application for condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act against the aforesaid decree dated 21.7.2000 before the District Judge, Agra. Though the application for condonation of delay was allowed but the revision was dismissed by respondent no. 1 vide judgment and order dated 20.5.2006. Aggrieved, the petitioner has invoked the writ jurisdiction by means of the instant writ petition.
Both the Courts below have recorded a concurrent finding of fact that the respondent no. 3 is real landlord and the actual rent of the disputed accommodation is Rs.250/- with taxes and not Rs.100/- with taxes, as claimed the petitioner. The concurrent finding of fact recorded by the Courts below is based on appraisal of documentary and oral evidence adduced by the parties and does not require interference in the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution as no illegality or infirmity has been shown in he impugned orders passed by the Courts below.
For the reasons stated above, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. The petitioner shall vacate the accommodation, in dispute within two months from today and pay the entire arrears of rent to the landlord within the aforesaid period. If the petitioner fails to deliver possession of the disputed accommodation to the landlord and make payment of arrears of rent within the aforesaid stipulated period, the landlord will be at liberty to evict the petitioner-tenant by coercive process with the aid of local Police.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.