Dismissed

Anil Kumar v. Sanjeev Goel

Allahabad HC6 Jul 2020SCCR/52/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed this revision filed by a tenant aggrieved by an eviction decree in a small cause suit. The tenant contested the validity of a rent deed and increased rent. The court found no material showing infraction of law and dismissed the petition. The tenant admitted vacating premises within six months.

What did the court decide?

Revision petition dismissed with a direction to vacate premises within six months.

Anil Kumar Vs Sanjeev Goel — Property and Title | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

Court No. - 38

¶2

Case :- S.C.C. REVISION No. - 52 of 2020

¶3

Revisionist :- Anil Kumar Opposite Party :- Sanjeev Goel Counsel for Revisionist :- Sharad Kumar Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- Santosh Kumar Kesarwani

¶4

Hon'ble Vivek Agarwal,J.

¶5

This revision petition has been filed by the defendant under the provision of Section 25 of the Provincial Small Causes Courts Act, 1887 being aggrieved of judgment dated 24.2.2020 whereby Small Cause Suit No. 21 of 2014 filed by the landlord seeking eviction of suit premises has been allowed by the court of learned Additional District Judge, Court No. 1, Saharanpur.

¶6

It is the contention of the revisionist that revisionist-defendant has vested right to continue as tenant of the disputed accommodation by merely executing fresh rent deed on expiry of period of tenancy on payment of enhanced rent at the rate of 10% per annum. It is submitted that after 5.8.2013 no fresh rent deed was executed by the revisionist and, therefore, the direction to pay the enhanced rent is illegal. Further the order of eviction is illegal.

¶7

It is submitted that impugned judgement is fraught with severe lacuna, lack of appreciation of material available on record and the court below has ventured to accept that the rent deed which was exhibited stood proved on the evidence of PW-2 whereas that agreement was never executed in presence of PW-2.

¶8

After hearing arguments of counsel for the revisionist and going through the record especially the evidence led by PW-2 in which PW-2 has categorically mentioned that rent deed was executed in the Chambers of Chopra, Advocate. Revisionist has not produced Sri Chopra in his defense to show that it was not executed in the Chambers of Sri Chopra. Further revisionist has not examined any handwriting expert to prove that so called rent deed does not contain his signatures. On the contrary, there is a rent deed available on record containing signatures of the revisionist so also that of the landlord alongwith signatures of two witnesses. One of the witness namely Navratan, S/o Janardan has been examined but revisionist has not examined anybody in his support so to deny the aspect of non-execution of rent deed.

¶9

The substantive statute i.e. Provincial Small Causes Courts Act,

¶10

1988 in Section 25 grants limited revisionary jurisdiction to the High Court for the purpose of satisfying itself that case decided by the court of Small Causes is according to law or not? No material has been brought on record to show that there is any infraction of any law so to call for indulgence in the revisionary jurisdiction of this High Court.

¶11

In view of such facts when revisionist has failed to make out a case for indulgence and has failed to show any infraction of law or legal provision, the writ petition being bereft of merit deserves to be dismissed and is dismissed.

¶12

Before parting with the order, it will not be out of place to mention that revisionist in the first instance admitted that he shall vacate suit premises if 6 months time is granted to him but on the question of payment of rent as decided by the Presiding Officer of the Small Causes Court, for such period of moratorium revisionist resented his offer and therefore merit of the case has been dealt with as discussed above.

¶13

Order Date :- 6.7.2020 S.K.S.

Anil Kumar v. Sanjeev Goel

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anil Kumar v. Sanjeev Goel

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shiv Nath Singh and Others Vs Harmendra Singh and Others

Ram Niwas and 5 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru Collector and Another

The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs Smt. Mamta Devi and 4 Others

Uma Gupta and 4 Others Vs Paras Jain and 5 Others

National Insurance Company Limited, through the Branch Manager,Civil Lines Vs Smt. Sanju and 5 Others

Neha Khatoon and Another Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others