Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

VINOD KUMAR versus JUDGE SMALL CAUSES COURT MEERUT AND OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Vinod Kumar v. Judge Small Causes Court Meerut And Others - WRIT - A No. 53698 of 2006 [2006] RD-AH 16943 (26 September 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.7

            Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 53698 of 2006

Vinod Kumar                        vs.      Judge Small Causes Court,

                                                        Meerut and others.

                                                         

Hon'ble Rakesh Tiwari, J.

Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.

             Brief facts of the case are that respondent-landlords filed S.C.C. Suit No. 110 of 2003 Smt. Kamal Rastogi and others Vs. Vinod Kumar in the Court of Judge Small Causes Court, Meerut for arrears of rent and ejectment against the petitioner alleging him to be tenant of the shop in question. The petitioner filed his written statement thereto denying the claim of the landlords.

              During the pendency of the suit, the respondent-plaintiffs filed an amendment application paper no. 39-C on 11.1.2005 interalia that the petitioner tenant has in his written statement question their rights as landlord and denied their title hence he is liable to be evicted on this ground alone. Objections Paper No.40C were filed by the petitioner interalia that the amendment in the plaint would change the nature of the suit and cause of action.

              The trial Court vide order dated 21.3.2005 allowed the amendment application holding that-

               ^^ 21-3-2005&

        okn iqdkjk x;k A Ik{kdkjksa ds fo}ku vf/koDrk x.k dks izkFkZuk Ik= 39 x ,oa vkifRr ij lquk A

         39 x izkFkZuk Ik= oknh nokjk ;g dgrs gq, fn;k gS A fd izfroknh nokjk vius izfrokn Ik= dh /kkjk 23 esa oknh x.k ds Hkou zLokfeRo dks udkjk gS ftlds vk/kkj ij Hkh izfroknh ds n[ky gskus ;ksX; gS rFkk blh vk'k; ls izfrokn Ik= esa la'kks/ku pkgk gSA

         izfroknh nokjk viuh vkifRr esa ;g dgk x;k gS fd izfrokn Ik= dh /kkjk 23 essa oknh x.k ds Hkou Lokeh ds fj'rksa ,oa LokfeRo ls badkj ugha fd;k x;k gS cfYd izfrokn Ik= dh /kkjk 23 dks Ik<us ls oknh x.k ls =qfV gqbZ gS vkSj ,slh fLFkfr esa la'kks/ku izkFkZuk Ik= dk fojks/k fd;k gS A

izfrokn Ik= dh /kkjk 23 esa ;g dgk x;k gS fd oknh x.k izfroknh x.k ds edku nkj dh zJs.kh esa ugha vkrs gS vkSj nksuks ds e/; edkunkj ,oa fdjk;snkj ds lEcU/k LFkkifr ugha gS rFkk mDr vfHkdFku oknhx.k ds vuqlkj muds Hkou Lokeh ds vfLrRo dks pqukSrh nsrs gS rFkk okLro esa mDr pqukSrh D;k izfroknhx.k dh csn[kyh gsrq Ik;kZIr gS ;k ugha ;g vafre fuLrkj.k dk fo"k; gS fdUrq orZeku esa tgkW oknhx.k izfrokn Ik= dh /kkjk 23 ds vfHkdFkuksa dks ;g le>rk gS fd og oknh x.k ds Hkou zLokfeRo ds vfLrRo dks udkjuk gS rks ,slh fLFkfr esa mDr ''la'kks/ku ls badkj ugha fd;k tk ldrk A

     izfroknh ds fo}ku vf/koDrkx.k dh vksj ls x.sk'kh yky cukr izFke vij ftyk tt xkthiqj] ,0vkbZ0vkj0 1995 bykgkckn&25 esa ekuuh; bykgkckn mPp U;k;ky; dh O;oLFkk ,oa jkf/kdk nsch cukr ctjaxh flag ,0vkbZ0vkj0 1996 lqizhe dksVZ 2358 esa ekuuh; loksZPPk U;k;ky; dh O;oLFkk izLrqr dh gS fdUrq mDr O;oLFkk;sa fHkUUk fof/kd fl}kzUrksa ds lEcU/k esa nh x;h gS tks fd izfroknh dks izLrqr izdj.k esa lgk;d ugha gS A

                 vkns'k

izkFkZuk Ik= 49 x Lohdkj fd;k tkrk gS A oknh 14 fnu wes okn Ik= esa laa'kks/ku djs rRi'pkr izfroknh fnukad 20&4&2005 rd viuk vfrfjDr izfrokn Ik= izLrqr dj ldrk gSA

                              g0 vLi"V

                          y?kqokn U;k;k/kh'k] esjB

                                 21-3-2005 ^^

Aggrieved by the aforesaid order dated 21.3.2005 of the trial Court, the petitioner preferred revision no. 41 of 2005, Vinod Kumar Vs. Smt. Kamal Rastogi and others before the Revisional Court which too was dismissed vide order dated 8.9.2006 holding that the amendment is based on the averments made by the petitioner in para 23 of his written statement, hence it can not be decided in the revision at this stage whether the trial Court has allowed the amendment application or not and that no interference in the order of the trial Court was required at this stage in revision. The relevant extract of the order of the Revisional Court is as under:-

         ^^eSaus nksuks Ik{kksa ls lquk rFkk Ik=koyh dk Hkyh HkkWfr voyksdu fd;k A

  fo}ku vf/koDrk fuxjkuhdrkZ us nkSjku cgl ;g rdZ izLrqr fd;k fd izfrokni= dh /kkjk 23 esa of.kZr rF;ksa dk oknhx.k }kjk loZFkk xyr vFkZ yxk;k x;k gS A ;g Hkh rdZ izLrqr fd;k x;k fd oknhx.k }kjk la'kks/ku izkFkZuk Ik= dks izekf.kr ugha fd;k x;k gS vdsys oknh la0&2 la'kks/ku izkFkZuk Ik= dks izekf.kr ,oa izLrqr ugha dj ldrk A

 izfrokni= dh /kkjk 23 eaasa vU; rF;ksa ds vykok ;g vafdr gS fd oknhx.k ,oa izfroknh@mRrjnkrk ds chp edkunkj fdjk;snkj ds laca/k esa Hkh LFkkfir ugha gq, gS ftl dkj.k Hkh oknhx.k u rks fdjk;k cuke csn[kyh dk okn ;ksftr djus ds vf/kdkjh gS rFkk u okn oknhx.k fdlh Hkh fLFkfr esa pyus ;ksX; gS A la'kks/ku izkFkZuk Ik= 39 x esa oknhx.k }kjk izfrokn Ik= dh /kkjk 23 esa of.kZr dFku dks gh la'kks/ku dk vk/kkj cuk;k x;k gS A fo}ku voj U;k;ky; }kjk izLrqr iz'uxr vkns'k ls ;g Li"V fd;k x;k gS fd tgkW oknhx.k izfrokn Ik= dh /kkjk 23 ds vfHkdFkuksa dks ;g le>rk gS afd oknhx.k ds Hkou LokfeRo ds vfLrRo dks udkjuk gS rks ,slh fLFkfr esa mDr la'kks/ku las badkj ugha fd;k tk ldrk A

foi{kh dh vksj ls  IkzLrqr U;k; O;oLFkk foey dqekj diwj cuke vij ftyk tt  okjk.klh 2005¿ 2�? ,0vkj0lh0 328 esa ekuuh; U;k;ky; }kjk ;g vo/kkj.kk O;Dr dh xbZ gS fd Hkou Lokeh }kjk iLrqr la'kks/ku izkFkZuk Ik= fopkj.k U;k;ky; }kjk Lohdkj fd;k tkuk vUrXkZr vksn'k gS A U;k; O;oLFkk gjh'kpanz cuke iape vij ftyk tt] cqyan'kgj 2006¿ 2�? ,0vkj0lh0 427 esa ekuuh; U;k;ky; }kjk ;g vo/kkj.kk O;Dr dh xbZ gS fd fuxjkuh U;k;ky; dks rF; laca/k esa fn, x, fu"d"kZZ ij gLr{ksIk djus dk vf/kdkj ugha gS aA

;g rF; egRoiw.kZ gS fd oknhx.k }kjk laa'kks/ku izkFkZuk Ik= izfrokn Ik= dh /kkjk 23 esa of.kZr dFkuksa ds vk/kkj  ij izLrqr fd;k x;k gS A bl LRkj ij bl rF; dk fuLrkj.k laHko ugha gSa A oknhx.k @foi{khx.k }kjk izfrokn Ik= dh /kkjk 23 esa of.kZr rF;ksa dh O;k[;k mfpr #Ik ls dh xbZ gS vFkok ughaA vr bl laca/k esa fo}ku voj U;k;ky; }kjk izLrqr iz'uxr vkns'k esa nh xbZ vo/kkj.kk esa fuxjkuh Lrj ij gLr{ksi fd, tkus dh vko';drk ugha gS A ;g rF; Hkh egRoiw.kZ ugha gS fd la'kks/ku izkFkZuk Ik= dks LkeLr oknhx.k }kjk izekf.kr fd;k x;k gS vFkok ugha A

mijksDr of.kZr ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa leLr RkF;ksa ,oa foi{kh }kjk izLrqr mijskDr U;k;ky; O;oLFkk dks n`f"Vxr j[krs gq, ;g Lohdkj fd,s tkus ;ksX; gS fd fo}ku voj U;k;ky; }kjk ikfjr vkns'k loZFkk fof/k iw.kZ gS A fuxjkuh Lrj ij mDr vksn'k esa fdlh gLr{ksi dh vko';drk ugha gS A fuxjkuh rn~uqlkj [kafMr fd, tkus ;ksX; gS A

                     vkns'k

    fuxjkuh [kafMr dh tkrh gS A fo}ku voj U;k;ky; dk vkns'k fnukad 21-3-2005 iq"V fd;k tkrk gS A Ik=koyh fu.kZ; dh izfr ds lkFk voj U;k;ky; dks iszf"kr fd;k tk;A Ik{kdkj voj U;k;ky; esa fnukad 28-9-2006 dks mifLFkr gksa A

fnukad 8-0-2006                     g0 vLi"V

                            ¿ vkj0 lh0 feJk �?

                 vij ftyk tt dksVZ ua0 7 esjB A ^^

The counsel for the petitioner submits that the trial Court allowed the amendment application in utter disregard to the provisions of Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure and the suit was barred by Section 23 of the Small Causes Courts Act.  He further submits that the Revisional Court has also committed an illegality and an irregularity in passing the impugned order without application of mind and dismissing the revision of the petitioner as it has failed to exercise powers vested in it under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Causes Courts Act, thus causing miscarriage of justice.

He further submits that the trial Court in its order dated 21.3.2005 has held that petitioner Vinod Kumar (opposite party before the Court below) in his objection has never denied the status of the concerned respondents as landlords and that the landlords are wrongly interpreting in para 23 of the amendment application.

The counsel for the respondents submits that there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned orders of both the Courts below, hence no interference is required by this Court.  

The only question before this Court is whether the Courts below have committed any error apparent on the face of record in allowing the amendment application of the plaintiff-respondents on basis of paragraph 23 of the amendment application which is  as under:-

  ^^/kkjk 23 ;g fd okn i= dh /kkjk&6 dk dFku Hkh furkUr vlR; xyr] nqHkkoukiw.kZ] vk/kkjghu cyghu] lk{;ghu] vLi"V viq"V viw.kZ fof/k fo:) gS rFkk QthZ ,oa lqxk'k'kh gS rFkk oknhx.k dk ;g dguk fof/k ,oa U;k; ds foijhr gS fd izfroknh @ mRrjnkrk dh ftykf/kdkjh fnukad 30-6-2002 dks jkf= esa ;kfu 1-7-2002 dks lekIr gks pqdh gS rFkk mldk mDr Hkkx ij dCtk vukf/kd`r gS D;ksfd u rks dksbz fdjk;snjh gh lekIr gqbZ gS u dCtk vukf/kd`r gS uksfVl gh oSo iz/kkughu voS/k rFkk fof/k fo:) ,oa vi;kZIr gS rFkk fujLr gks pqdk gSA vkSj oknhx.k dks ,slk dksbZ vf/kdkj Hkh ugh FkkA rFkk dCtk vukf/kd`dsr fdjk;snkj dk dHkh gksrk gh ugha gSA rFkk u dCtk mRrjnkrk @ izfroknh dk vukf/kd`r gSA oknhx.k rks mRrjnkrk ds fy, vHkh rd edkunkj dh Js.kh esa dHkh ugha vkrs gS vkSj rFkk oknhx.k ,oa izfroknh@ mRrjnkrk ds chp edkunkj o fdjk;snkj ds lEcU/k Hkh LFkkfir ugha gq, gS ftl dkj.k Hkh oknhx.k u rks fdjk;k cuke csn[kyh dk okn;ksftr djus ds vf/kdkjh gS  rFkk u okn oknhx.k fdlh Hkh fLFkfr esa pyus ;ksX; gSA oknhx.k dk ;g dguk Hkh drbZ xyr] vlR;] nqHkkZoukiw.kZ] QthZ ,oa uqek;'kh gS fd oknhx.k dk izfroknh @ mRrjnkrk dh vksj fnukad 13-3-1995 la fnukad 30-6-2002 rd dk fdjk;k 11@& :i;s izfrekg dh nj ls vadu 963 :i;s o fnukad 1-7-2002 ls fnukad 30-9-2003 rd gS okLro fdjk;snkjh ls vadu 164 :i;s o uksfVl dk [kpkZ 360@& :i;s 'ks"k gSA mRrjnkrk us leLr fdjk;k U;k;ky; esa tek dj jgk gS rFkk ;g oknhx.k ds bUdkjh ds ckn fd;k gS vkSj okLykr curk gh ugha gSA ,slk oknhx.k us Hkh Lohdkj Hkh fd;k gqvk gS rHkh rks fdjk;s dh gh nj ls oklykr dk :i;k fy[kk gS vkSj uksfVl QthZ] vos/k rFkk fcuk 360@& :i;s [kpZ dk gS tSlk fd izekf.kr gS rFkk oknhx.k ds gh dFku ls lkfcr gSA bl izdkj lsoknhx.k us leLr nkok >waBk xyr nqHkkZoukiw.kZ rjhds ls nk;j fd;k gS rFkk mRrjnkrk dks ukgd ijs'kku fd;k tk jgk gS vkSj mRrjnkrk dk vuko';d :i;s [kpkZ eqdnek rFkk odhy Qhl vkfn [kpZ djkdj vkfFkZd gkfu rFkk >wBs vkSj voS/kkfud eqdnes djds ekufld {kfr o jkstkuk rkjh[kk mifLFkr djkdj 'kkjhfjd {kfr igqapkbZ tk jgh gS ftldh jkf'k 6000@& :i;s gS rFkk oknhx.k gh izfroknh@ mRrjnkrk dks 6000@& :i;s [kpkZ eqdnek Qhl  - - -  vkfn vnk djus ds fy, mRrjnk;h gSA**

         From perusal of para 23 of the amendment application it is apparent that the tenant has clearly and specifically alleged that the notice given by the landlords was illegal and he is not occupying the accommodation in dispute illegally. However, a clear averment has been made by the tenant denying the relationship of landlords and tenant interalia that the plaintiffs do not come under the category of landlords and no relationship of landlords and tenant has been established between the plaintiffs and the respondent-opposite party.

I have gone through the impugned orders of both the courts below and find no illegality or infirmity in the impugned orders. There are concurrent findings of facts of both the Courts below. In the circumstances, no interference is called for by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution

For the reasons stated above, the writ petition is dismissed.

Dated 26.9.2006

CPP/-

         


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.