In a revision alleging under-decree regarding tenant rent of Rs. 1000 versus Rs. 1100, the High Court found the tenant vacated the property. However, the rent enhancement was unproved due to authentication issues with documentary evidence.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 5
Case :- S.C.C. REVISION No. - 492 of 2014 Revisionist :- Ramesh Kumar Gautam Opposite Party :- Suresh Chandra Gupta Counsel for Revisionist :- S. Shekhar,Prakhar Tandon Counsel for Opposite Party :- Pankaj Agarwal
Hon'ble Surya Prakash Kesarwani,J.
Heard Sri Prakhar Tandon, learned counsel for the plaintiff - revisionist and Sri Pankaj Agarwal, learned counsel for the defendant-tenant.
Learned counsel for the defendant-tenant states that the defendant-tenant has vacated the disputed house and has also handed over its vacant and peaceful possession to the plaintiff-revisionist long back which fact has been admitted before this Court by learned counsel for the plaintiff-revisionist. On this basis, learned counsel for the defendant / tenant / opposite party submits that the present revision of the plaintiff - landlord has become infructuous.
Learned counsel for the plaintiff / landlord / revisionist submits that the revision has not become infructuous, inasmuch as the rent was Rs. 1100/- per month w.e.f. 1.1.2006 and not Rs. 1000/- per month which was paid / deposited by the defendant - tenant. Therefore, the dispute with regard to rate of rent still survives.
In support of his submission, learned counsel for the plaintiff-revisionist submits that a Katta of rent receipt was produced by the plaintiff - revisionist to prove that the rent was Rs. 1100/- and yet the Court below has not decreed the Suit for the differential amount of Rs. 100/- per month.
Learned counsel for the defendant / tenant / respondent
supports the impugned judgment dated 8.9.2014
I have carefully considered the submission of learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgment dated 8.9.2014 passed by the Additional District Judge / Judge, Small Causes Court, Court No. 17, Kanpur Nagar.
It is admitted by the parties that the tenancy started from 1.7.2002 on a monthly rent of Rs. 1000/-. The plaintiffrevisionist made allegation in the plaint that the rent was enhanced by mutual consent to Rs. 1100/- w.e.f. 1.1.2006. He filed some counterfoils regarding rent at the rate of Rs. 1100/- per month for the months of January, February and March, 2006. This Paper No. 46-Ga was denied by the defendant - tenant. The plaintiff-revisionist has not proved this paper. The Court below also found that there is overwriting in Paper No. 46-Ga.
After considering the facts of the case and evidences on record, the Court below recorded a finding of fact that the rent receipt Paper No. 46-Ga was prepared by the plaintiffrevisionist for the purposes of the case. The Court below recorded a finding of fact based on consideration of relevant evidences on record that the rent of the disputed house was Rs. 1000/- per month and the rent was not enhanced.
For all the reasons aforestated, I do not find any merit in this revision. Consequently, the revision fails and is hereby dismissed .
Order Date :- 6.11.2019 Arif
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the revision, filed seeking enhancement of rent from Rs. 1000 to Rs. 1100 per month, is infructuous since the tenant vacated the property.
Whether evidence of enhanced rent was sufficient to establish the rate of Rs. 1100 per month.
Surya Prakash Kesarwani
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
