Dismissed

Nayeem Abdul and Another v. Subhash Chandra and 2 Others

Allahabad HC8 Nov 2021A227/6061/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Court dismissed the writ petition challenging the rejection of plaint under Order VII Rule 11A CPC. Held that landowner status and applicability of tenancy laws are questionable of evidence requiring trial. Directed lower court to decide the suit expeditiously.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; lower court directed to decide pending small causes case within six months.

Nayeem Abdul and Another Vs Subhash Chandra and 2 Others — Landlord and Tenant | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 58 Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 6061 of 2021

¶2

Petitioner :- Nayeem Abdul And Another Respondent :- Subhash Chandra And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Chandra Jeet Yeadav,Niraj Kumar Tiwari

¶3

Hon'ble Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.

¶4

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.

¶5

Present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed seeking following reliefs:-

¶6

(i) Issue an appropriate order or direction to declare the Small Causes Case No. 01 of 2019 (Subhash Chandra Vs Nayeem Abdul and Others), pending in the Court of Special Judge, (EC Act), Bijnor barred by Chapter III, Section 15 of the Provincial Small Causes Courts Act, 1887 (9 of 1887) and the Schedule II of Provincial Small Cause Couts Act, 1887 (9 of 1887).

¶7

(ii) Issue an appropriate order or direction to set aside the order dated 10.08.2021 passed in the Small Causes Case No. 01 of 2019 (Subhash Chandra Vs Nayeem Abdul and Others) pending in the Court of Special Judge, (EC Act), Bijnor.

¶8

Plaintiff-respondent no. 1 is said to have instituted Small Causes Case No. 01 of 2019 (Subhash Chandra Vs Nayeem Abdul and others) before the court of Special Judge (EC Act), Bijnor with specific pleading to the effect that the provisions of Act No. 13 of 1972 are not applicable, the petitioners are not paying rent w.e.f. April, 2018 and vide legal notice dated 02.1.2019 tenancy was terminated and same was informed to the petitioners claiming a relief of recovery of possession of shop in question to the plaintiff-respondent no. 1 from the petitioners along with another relief for recovery of unpaid rent, tax of Nagar palika along with expenses of notice.

¶9

It is averred that during the proceedings, petitionersdefendants moved paper 25(Ga) under Order VII Rule 11A CPC, which has been rejected by the court vide order dated 10.08.2021.

¶10

The contention of the petitioners-defendants in the said

¶11

application was that the plaintiffs, are neither the landlord nor the owner of the shops in dispute, and, therefore, they cannot have any claim over the property, and therefore, there being no cause of action to file the suit, the plaint is liable to be rejected. It is further submitted that the Court below has not considered the matter in its correct perspective

¶12

I have perused the impugned order. There is no illegality in the impugned order. The court below was justified in dismissing the application seeking rejection of plaint. The Court below has rightly held that the grounds taken for rejecting the plaint can only be decided upon evidence that would be tendered by the parties before the Court below. The contentions urged by the petitionersdefendants herein could still be urged in the suit and the maintainability of the suit can be still considered by the Court below after the evidence has been tendered. The Court below after taking note of the rival contentions has arrived at the conclusion that the issues raised therein are all matters where evidence would have to be tendered by the parties and after trial upon evidence only a decision could be reached.

¶13

As such the writ petition has no force and is accordingly dismissed. However, the court below is directed to consider and decide the Small Causes Case No. 01 of 2019 (Subhash Chandra Vs Nayeem Abdul and Others), pending in the Court of Special Judge, (EC Act), Bijnor, expeditiously, in accordance with law, after affording notice and opportunity to all the parties, within a period of six months from the date of presentation of a copy of this order, if there is no other legal impediment. However, it is also expected that court below shall make every endeavour to expedite the hearing of the said case in accordance with law. Adjournment shall be granted only under very pressing circumstances that too after imposing heavy costs on the party seeking adjournment.

¶14

Order Date :- 8.11.2021 RavindraKSingh

Nayeem Abdul and Another v. Subhash Chandra and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nayeem Abdul and Another v. Subhash Chandra and 2 Others

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

Vinay Bohara Vs State of U.P and Others

Smt. Mamta Sonkar Vs Shiv Kumar Sonkar

Nand Kishore (Deceased) and 2 Others Vs Sharad Kumar

Smt Reena Bhatt And Another Vs Akhil Bhatt

Jaishree Ram Wadhwani Vs Praveen Bajaj and Another

Akhilesh Kumar Jain Vs Khudavand Tala Waqf Masuma Waqf Imambara Samanyan (Khandani)