Petitioner landlord challenged revisional court order which set aside lower court decree. High Court held writ petition lacked merit as petitioner failed to prove insufficiency of deposit, dismissing the writ.
The writ petition was dismissed for lack of merit.
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 :- WRIT - A No. - 64458 of 2010
Petitioner :- Surya Kumar Respondent :- Nand Lal Counsel for Petitioner :- Chandra Bhan Gupta Counsel for Respondent :- O.P. Lohiya,Q.K.Ansari
Hon'ble Surya Prakash Kesarwani,J.
Heard learned counsel for the plaintiff-landlord/petitioner.
Undisputedly, the plaintiff-petitioner is the owner and landlord of the disputed shop of which the defendant-respondent is the tenant since 27.10.1981. After giving notice the plaintiffpetitioner filed S.C.C. Suit No.17 of 1984 (Harsh Narayan v. Nand Lal), which was decreed by judgment dated 21.3.2005 passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division)/Small Cause Court No.9, Ballia.
Aggrieved with this judgment, the defendant-tenant filed S.C.C. Revision No.5 of 2005, Nand Lal v. Surya Kumar, which was allowed by the impugned judgment dated 19.7.2010 passed by the Additional District Judge (Court No.1), Ballia.
Aggrieved with the judgment of the revisional court, the plaintiff-landlord has filed the present writ petition.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the entire amount, as required under Section 20(4) of U.P. Act XIII of 1972, was not deposited by the defendant-tenant/respondent and as such the revisional court has committed manifest error of law to set aside the judgment of the Small Causes Court and to allow the revision.
No other point has been argued before me.
I have carefully considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the plaintiff-landlord/petitioner and I find no substance in it.
In this writ petition, the petitioner has not disclosed as to how much amount was due and payable and what amount was deposited by the defendant-petitioner on the first date of hearing.
In paragraph Nos. 20 and 23 of the writ petition vague averments have been made, which has been replied by the tenant-respondent in paragraph Nos. 24 and 27 of the counter affidavit. The tenant-respondent has also filed a copy of the
written statement as well as detail particulars of the deposit made before the Judge, Small Cause Court on the first date of hearing.
Perusal of the application shows that under different heads including arrears of rent from 27.10.1981 to 31.8.1984, amounting to Rs.3,716/-, was deposited by the tenantrespondent on the first date of hearing i.e., 29.8.1984.
The Judge, Small Causes Court committed a manifest error law in extending the benefit of Section 20(4) of the Act, that the entire amount has not been deposited by the tenant- respondent on the first date of hearing. The revisional court found that the entire amount including interest etc. was deposited by the tenant-respondent on the first date of hearing. Consequently, extending the benefit of Section 20(4) of U.P. Act XIII of 1972, the revisioinal court allowed the revision and set aside the judgment dated 21.3.2005. Thus, the impugned judgment of the revisional court does not suffer from any manifest error of law.
For all the reasons afore-stated, I do not find any merit in this writ petition. Consequently, the writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed.
Order Date :- 15.11.2019 Ak/
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the revisional court committed a manifest error of law by setting aside the lower court judgment without a showing that the tenant deposited the entire dues under Section 20(4) of the Landlord
Whether the petitioner has substantiated the claim regarding the amount due and deposited to establish error by the revisional court.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Surya Kumar
Nand Lal
Surya Prakash Kesarwani
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
