Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

SARJU DEVI versus SMT. HAYAT MOHAMMAD

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Sarju Devi v. Smt. Hayat Mohammad - WRIT - A No. 20981 of 2006 [2006] RD-AH 7876 (18 April 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. 28

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 20981 of 2006

Sarju Devi

Versus

Smt. Hayat Mohammad

Hon'ble Krishna Murari, J.

Heard Sri R. S. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner.

By means of this petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 13.9.2004 passed by Judge Small Causes Court, Kanpur Nagar and revisional order dated 2.9.2005.

The facts are that the petitioner claiming herself to be owner / landlady of House No. 130/6-C Bagahi Bhatta, Kanpur Nagar filed SCC suit for arrears of rent and ejection of the tenant/respondent. The proceedings were contested by the tenant/respondent inter alia on the ground that the property in dispute was declared as slum area and was acquired by the Kanpur Development Authority and thereafter a plot of about 73-squire metre was allotted to him and for which he is paying Rs. 10/- per month to the Kanpur Development Authority. It was also pleaded that the dispute about the tile of the property is pending before a Competent Court in suit no. 535 of 1990.

On the basis of pleadings of the parties, the trial court framed two issues namely whether there exists any relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and whether the notice given by the petitioner/landlord under Section 106 of Transfer of Property Act was a valid notice.

In so far as issue no. 1 is concerned, the trial court held that the petitioner has failed to prove that she is landlady of the premises in dispute. In so far as issue no. 2 is concerned the trial court held that the petitioner/landlady has failed to prove the notice under Section 106 of Transfer of Property Act and as such it was not a valid notice. The same findings have been confirmed by the revisional court .

It has been urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner that both the courts below have wrongly held that the property was acquired by Kanpur Development Authority and the notification issued for the purpose was quashed by this Courtin writ petition no. 10904 of 1983. It has further been urged that the finding with regard to notice under Section 106 of Transfer of Property Act was also illegal.

I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.

The trial court while deciding issue no. 1 has recorded a find that although it was pleaded on behalf of the petitioner that acquisition of the property in dispute made by Kanpur Development Authority was quashed by this Court in writ petition no. 10904 of 1983 but the certified copy of the said judgment has not been brought on record. The trial court refused to place any reliance on the photocopy of the judgment filed before it. A further finding has been recorded on the basis of the statement of P.W. 1 that title dispute between the parties with regard to the property in dispute is pending adjudication in suit no. 535 of 1990. However, the revisional court examined the photocopy of the judgment, which was brought on record and recorded a finding that the petitioner has failed to establish that the acquisition of the property in dispute made by Kanpur Development Authority was quashed by this Court. Even before this Court the judgment on which reliance was being placed  by the petitioner has not been brought on record of the writ petition to enable the Court to verify the fact. On the basis of the aforesaid finding the trial court held that the petitioner has failed to prove that she was the landlady of the premises in dispute and decided issue no. 1 accordingly. There appears no illegality in the finding recorded by the trial court and confirmed by the rivisional court on issue no. 1.

In so far as issue no. 2 is concerned the trial court found that in cross-examination at one place it has been admitted by the petitioner notice under Section 106 of Transfer of Property Act was not given by her but by her husband and at another place she has stated that whether any notice under Section 106 of Transfer of Property Act was given or not. On the basis of aforesaid, the trial court came to the conclusion that alleged notice under Section 106 of Transfer of Property Act was not a valid notice and the same finding has been confirmed by the revisional court and there appears to be no illegality.

In view of the aforesaid discussions, there appears no scope for interference in the findings recorded by the two courts below. The writ petition accordingly fails and is dismissed.

Dt. 18.4.2006


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.