Dismissed

Harswaroop Singh Baba v. Satish Chandra Agrawal

Allahabad HC25 Nov 2021SCCRD/43/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The single judge dismissed the revision petition filed by a tenant against a decree for eviction and recovery of rent. The court rejected the argument that the underlying suit was based on wrong allegations regarding property partition and ownership, holding that the trial court's findings were supported by admitted facts.

What did the court decide?

The revision petition failed and was dismissed. The order date is 25.11.2021.

Harswaroop Singh Baba Vs Satish Chandra… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 4

¶2

Case :- S.C.C. REVISION DEFECTIVE No. - 43 of 2020

¶3

Revisionist :- Harswaroop Singh Baba Opposite Party :- Satish Chandra Agrawal Counsel for Revisionist :- Deepak Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- Ram Kishore Pandey,Himanshu Raghav Pandey

¶4

Hon'ble Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,J.

¶5

In Re: C.M. Delay Condonation Application No.02 of 2020

¶6

Cause shown is sufficent. Delay in filing the revision is condoned.

¶7

Application is allowed.

¶8

Office is directed to allot regular number to this revision.

¶9

In Re: Revision

¶10

Heard Sri Deepak Singh, learned counsel for defendantrevisionist and Sri R.K. Pandey, learned counsel for plaintiffrespondent.

¶11

This revision under Section 25 of Provincial of Small Cause Courts Act, 1887 has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 18.02.2020.

¶12

Facts, in nutshell, are that the defendant-revisionist is a tenant of residential accommodation which was let out to him by the father of the plaintiff-respondent, late Krishna Chandra Agrawal. The revisionist committed default in payment of rent, as such S.C.C. Suit No.01 of 2018 (Satish Chandra Agrawal Vs. Harswaroop Singh Baba) was filed before the Court of Small Causes Court/F.T.C., Amroha. The suit was decreed vide judgment and order dated 18.02.2020 holding that defendant revisionist was in arrears of rent and order for eviction was passed.

¶13

Sri Deepak Singh, learned counsel appearing for defendantrevisionist submitted that the court below had not considered the fact that after the the death of late Krishna Chandra Agrawal, the property in dispute was partitioned among the sons and the share in which the revisionist is residing fell into the share of one Manish Chandra Agrawal who is the younger son of late Krishna Chandra Agrawal. He then contended that

¶14

rent being deposited with Manish Chandra Agrawal and not with the plaintiff, Satish Chandra Agrawal. He next urged that the court below had wrongly recorded the finding that there was default in rent as the said amount was already being paid to Manish Chandra in whose share the house in question has come after partition. He also contended that the plaintiff is a practising advocate and the suit was filed on wrong allegations.

¶15

Opposing the revision, Sri R.K. Pandey, learned counsel for the plaintiff-respondent submitted that the trial court had decided the issue no.1 in regard to the relationship of landlord and tenant, wherein a categorical finding has been recorded as to the ownership of the property in dispute of Sri Satish Chandra, the plaintiff. He then contended that the house in question has not come into the share of Manish Chandra and in reply submitted to the notice given under Section 106 of Transfer of Property Act which was replied on 28.06.2017, the defendant revisionist had admitted the ownership of the plaintiff-respondent.

¶16

I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.

¶17

The trial court had framed the following issues:-

¶18

1- क्यया वविवियावदित मकयान कया वियादिदी और प्रवतवियादिदी मम भविन स्वियामदी एएंवि वकरयाययेदियार कया सएंबएंध हहै ?

¶19

2- क्यया वविवियावदित मकयान कया मयाससक वकरयायया 4500/- रूपयये हहै, यवदि हयाएं ततो प्रभयावि ?

¶20

3- क्यया वविवियावदित मकयान कया मयाससक वकरयायया 1500/- रूपयये मयाससक हहै, यवदि हयाएं ततो प्रभयावि ?

¶21

4- क्यया प्रवतवियादिदी दयारया वदिनयाएंक 01.11.2016 सये वदिनयाएंक 05.07.2017 तक कया वकरयायया सएंदियाय नहहीं वकयया गयया ?

¶22

5- क्यया वियादिदी दयारया प्रवतवियादिदी कतो वदियया गयया नतोवटिस वविसधक हहै ?

¶23

6- क्यया वविवियावदित दिदकयान पर उ०प्र० असधवनयम सएंख्यया 13 सनन-1972 कये प्रयावविधयान प्रयतोज्य हहै, यवदि हयाएं ततो प्रभयावि ?

¶24

7- क्यया वियादिदी दयारया प्रस्तदत ककी गयदी वकरयायये ककी रसदीदि फरर्जी हहै, यवदि हयाएं ततो प्रभयावि ?

¶25

8- क्यया प्रवतवियादिदी नये वकरयायया दियेनये मम चदक वकयया हहै ?

¶26

9- अनदततोष, सरसये वियादिदी प्रयाप्त करनये कया असधकयारदी हहै ?

¶27

The trial court had decided issue no.1 in regard to the relationship of landlord and the tenant where categorical finding has been recorded to the effect that in the reply dated 28.06.2017 to the notice of the plaintiff, the defendantrevisionist has accepted the ownership of the plaintiff. Further, the court below while deciding issues no.4 to 8 had recorded that there has been default in payment of rent.

¶28

The argument raised by learned counsel for the revisionist has no strength on the ground that it is an admitted case of the defendant-revisionist that the plaintiff-respondent is the owner of house in dispute and there having been committed default in rent, the S.C.C. Suit was rightly decreed by the court below.

¶29

No interference is required. Revision fails and is, hereby, dismissed .

¶30

Order Date :- 25.11.2021 SK Goswami

Harswaroop Singh Baba v. Satish Chandra Agrawal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Harswaroop Singh Baba v. Satish Chandra Agrawal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Ramesh Chandra Purwar Vs Judge A.J.S.C.C. Allahabad and Another

Smt.Shashi Rani Verma Vs Gyan Chandra

Ninuaa Ram Vs Gyani Ram and Others

Bhola Nath and Others Vs Smt.Rani Devi and Others

Nisha Khurana Vs Kapil Sachdeva and Another

Kali Prasad and Another Vs Swami Nath and 5 Ors.