Research › Browse › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

1985 DIGILAW 194 (ALL)

Jugla Devi v. 1st Addl. District Judge

1985-02-14

K.N.GOYAL

body1985
JUDGMENT K.N. Goyal, J. - The petitioner is the landlady of a certain house. She was living in a portion of the house while the other portions were in the occupation of several tenants. One of the tenants was the oppositeparty no. 3. He was a Government servant. The house is situate in Sitapur. The oppositeparty was posted at Biswan in Sitapur district. He was transferred to Hardoi. On this the landlady made an application to the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, who after hearing the parties declared the portion of the house which was under the tenancy of the oppositeparty, to be vacant. This order is dated 27179, annexure 7. Thereafter, the petitioner's release application was allowed by the said authority on 2379, vide order annexure 10. Against both these orders, revisions were filed, though the revision against the order of declaration of vacancy was clearly misconceived as no revision lies against such an order. A revision lay only against the order dated 2379. The contention of the oppositeparty was that although he was no doubt transferred from Biswan to Hardoi, he had had a separate house in Biswan and the provisions of section 12 (3A) could apply only to that other house and not to the house in Sitapur proper which he had taken on lease for other members of his family and not for himself. Learned Additional District Judge who heard the revision took the view that the evidence on this point was not conclusive because both parties had asserted their respective cases. In this view of the matter, he thought that further evidence should be taken which should be of a conclusive nature and for this purpose he remanded the case to the Rent Control and Eviction Officer. Aggrieved thereby the petitioner has come to this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. 2. The order of the Additional District Judge discloses merely learned Judge's inability to make up his mind on the evidence which was already on the record. Even if both the parties assert their respective cases, the circumstances have to be considered and in the light of those circumstances the evidence has to be appraised and conclusion to be reached on a balance of probabilities. Even if both the parties assert their respective cases, the circumstances have to be considered and in the light of those circumstances the evidence has to be appraised and conclusion to be reached on a balance of probabilities. A Judge of a superior court cannot shirk his duty to arrive at a judicial conclusion by folding his bands in despair and passing the buck to the lower court. The evidence and the circumstances had been thoroughly discussed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer in his order dated 27179 and it was necessary that the revisional court should have applied its mind to the same and not to have shirked its responsibility in that behalf. There was no grievance before it that any party had been denied opportunity to give evidence before the Rent Control and Eviction Officer. The grounds of revision, annexure 11, do not mention any such plea. In the circumstances, the order of remand was manifestly erroneous and not warranted by law. The said order is not truly a judgment at all in the eye of law. 3. It may be mentioned here that in this Court a supplementary counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the oppositeparty and a rejoinder has also been filed by the petitioner controverting the allegations in the supplementary counter affidavit. No opinion is being expressed herein on the alleged new developments. If there is anything to be considered in that behalf, the same may be brought to the notice of the revisional court by the parties. It is not for this Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction to examine the facts for itself where the lower Court having jurisdiction has failed to exercise it. 4. In the result, the writ petition is allowed, and the order, annexure 12, dated 291079 is hereby quashed. The revisional court shall now decide the revision in accordance with law. As the matter is very old, the revision shall be decided expeditiously. (Petition allowed)