Disposed

Moolchandra v. Surajobai Balika Inter College Kila Gate Hathras

Allahabad HC14 May 2018A227/2817/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This petition under Article 227 challenged the rejection of an application to file original rent receipts in a landlord-tenant eviction suit where pleadings stated no receipts were issued. The Court found no grounds for interference in the supervisory jurisdiction.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to move application to amend written statement if trial has not started; petition disposed of.

Moolchandra Vs Surajobai Balika Inter College Kila… — Landlord and Tenant | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 26

¶2

Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 2817 of 2018 Petitioner :- Moolchandra Respondent :- Surajobai Balika Inter College Kila Gate Hathras

¶3

Counsel for Petitioner :- Manoj Kumar Singh

¶4

Hon'ble Mrs. Sangeeta Chandra,J.

¶5

Oral

¶6

This petition has been filed by the petitioner / tenant challenging the order dated 18.10.2012 passed by the Judge Small Causes Court, Hathras and the order dated 7.4.2018 passed by the Additional District Judge, Court No. 3, Hathras in SSC Revision No. 12 of 2012 (Moolchandra Vs. Surjobai Balika Inter College, Kila gate, Hathras.

¶7

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that Surjobai Balika Inter College is the landlord and the petitioner is the tenant of one shop. The landlord filed a SCC Suit No. 1 of 2006 for arrears of rent and for eviction.

¶8

A written statement was filed wherein inadvertently, it has been mentioned that although he was depositing rent to the landlord in its office, no rent receipts were ever received to him. The demand of the landlord for forty months of arrears of rent w.e.f. 1.6.1988 to 31.8.2007 amounting to Rs. 12,515/- was also deposited by the tenant under Section 20(4) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 along with other statutory expenses.

¶9

The petitioner / tenant filed an application paper no. 74-C2 praying for taking on record the list of original documents / originals of the rent receipts issued to the petitioner/ tenant

¶10

by the office of the landlord. This application was contested by the landlord by filing their objections paper no. 77-C2 saying that the rent receipts now being sought to be filed were infact forged as in paragraph 3 of the written statement, the tenant had initially contended that although he was tendering rent to the landlord, no rent receipts were given to him and it is settled law that no person can be allowed to lead evidence against his own pleadings on record.

¶11

Since, the pleading was that no receipts had been issued and the pleadings in the written statement had not amended, but only list of original documents / receipts along with application were being filed, the learned Trial Court as well as the Revisional Court took into account the objections of the landlord and rejected the petitioner's application.

¶12

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that due to misconceived the legal advise, at the trial stage, no attempt was made to amend the written statement. He has also submitted that the documentary evidence proposed to be filed through application before the learned Trial Court, were the originals of the rent receipts issued by the clerk in the office of the landlord and the clerk in his evidence had admitted that the rent receipts were in his handwriting and the then Manager of the college had also signed them. As such, the rent receipts were valid and necessary documents to be filed before the Trial Court for a complete adjudication of the controversy involved with regard to allegation of the

¶13

landlord that the rent had not been paid for forty months by the tenant.

¶14

I have perused the orders impugned passed by the learned Trial Court and the learned Revisional Court.

¶15

I do not find any legal or factual infirmity therein to show any interference in supervisory jurisdiction. However, it shall be open for the petitioner / tenant to move appropriate application for amendment of his written statement, if the trial has not started, and if such an application is moved, the same shall be considered on merits by the learned Trial Court.

¶16

With these observations, the petition is disposed of.

¶17

Order Date :- 14.5.2018 Arif

Moolchandra v. Surajobai Balika Inter College Kila Gate Hathras

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Moolchandra v. Surajobai Balika Inter College Kila Gate Hathras

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dr. Sunil Malhotra Vs Surendra Singh and 2 Others

Smt. Shahida Jamal Vs Matiur Raza Begh and 4 Others

Hari Mohan Asthana Vs Additional District Judge and 2 Others

Mukteshwar Tiwari Vs XVIth Additional District Judge,Kanpur Nagar and Another

Bilal Ahmad Vs Additional Civil Judge and Another

Shobhit Kapoor Vs Additional District Judge, Kanpur Nagar and 2 Others