The High Court, in a revision, condoned the delay beyond the 13-day limitation period. It then rejected the petition challenging the lower court's finding that no landlord-tenant relationship existed, dismissing the revision.
Delay condoned; revision dismissed.
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 DEFECTIVE No. - 73 of 2019 Revisionist :- Gaurav Singh Opposite Party :- Munishwar Lal Kakkad Counsel for Revisionist :- Nitin Kumar Agrawal Counsel for Opposite Party :- Surendra Nath Dubey,Sachin Dubey,Surendra Nath Dubey
Hon'ble Surya Prakash Kesarwani,J.
Heard Sri J.P. Patel holding brief of Sri Nitin Kumar Agrawal, learned counsel for the defendant-revisionist and Sri S.N. Dubey, learned counsel for the plaintiff-respondent.
This revision has been filed beyond limitation of 13 days. A counter affidavit has been filed today by the plaintiff-respondent, which is taken on record.
Cause shown for delay in filing the revision is sufficient. Therefore, the delay is condoned. Delay Condonation Application is allowed. Office is directed to give regular number to the revision.
This revision has been filed praying to set aside the order dated 16.07.2019 in S.C.C. Suit No.36 of 2017 (Muneeshwar Land Kakkad vs. Gaurav Singh) passed by the Additional District Judge, Court No.6, Ghaziabad whereby the Application 48ga filed by the defendantrevisionist to reject the plaint on the ground of it being barred by law, has been dismissed.
The Application 48ga was filed by the defendant-revisionist on the ground that there is no landlord-tenant relationship between the plaintiff-respondent and defendant-revisionist and as such the S.C.C. suit is barred by law.
Undisputedly, the plaintiff-respondent is the owner and landlord of the disputed building. This fact has not been denied by the defendant-revisionist in his written statement and instead it has been stated that in suit No.1132 of 2013, the court of Civil Judge (S.D.), Ghaziabad by judgment dated 01.03.2016 decided issue No.1 in negative and held that since 14.04.2013, the defendant-revisionist is not the tenant of the plaintiff-respondent. In the impugned order dated 16.07.2019, the court below found that in the aforesaid S.C.C. Suit No.1132 of 2013, the aforesaid inference was drawn on the ground that the written tenancy came to an end on 14.04.2013 and the plaintiff-respondent has failed to establish that the period of tenancy was further enhanced orally for ten years. Therefore, it was held that the defendant-revisionist is not the tenant. In the impugned judgment, the court below has observed that the defendantrevisionist has admitted in reply to the notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act that a rent agreement was entered between the parties on 15.08.2009 for 11 months. It has also been found that in his written statement, the defendant-revisionist has not denied his status to be a status different from a tenant. In a rent case, the relationship of landlord and tenant is to be decided. Therefore, there was no occasion for the court below to allow the Application 48ga filed by the defendant-revisionist.
For all the reasons afore-stated, I do not find any merit in this revision. Consequently, the revision fails and is hereby dismissed .
Order Date :- 13.11.2019 NLY
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the revision filed beyond the 13-day limitation period should be accepted given sufficient cause shown.
Whether the lower court ERRED in dismissing the application to reject the plaint on the ground of non-existence of a landlord-tenant relationship.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Gaurav Singh
Munishwar Lal Kakkad
Surya Prakash Kesarwani
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
