Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 3831 (ALL)

Nand Lal @ Nand Ram v. Raja Ram

2009-12-18

SHISHIR KUMAR

body2009
JUDGMENT Hon'ble Shishir Kumar,J. Heard Sri K.K.Tripathi, learned counsel for petitioner and Sri M.D.Singh 'Shekhar', learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Anil Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel appearing for respondents. 2. This writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 18.11.2009 (Annexure 17 to writ petition) and order dated 17.10.2006 (Annexure 10 to writ petition). 3. Respondent being landlord filed a suit for arrears of rent and ejectment after serving notice for default and claimed rent that in spite of notice, rent has not been paid. Then a suit was filed. The Judge, Small Causes Court on the basis of relevant evidence has recorded a finding that admittedly petitioner has not deposited the cost of suit, advocate fee and damages, therefore, he is not entitled to get benefit of Section 20 Sub Clause (4) of the Act and suit was decreed vide its judgment and order dated 17.10.2006. Petitioner filed a revision. Revisional court after recording a finding that petitioner has not complied the provision of Section 20 Sub Clause (4) of the Act and admittedly petitioner is a defaulter, has dismissed the revision. Hence, the present writ petition. 4. Petitioner submits that petition has deposited rent on 1.9.2000 on the first date of hearing he has deposited the amount which is apparent from the receipts annexed to the writ petition as well as it was annexed before the court below but the court below has not considered the same and decreed the suit. Further revisional court has also not considered the same. 5. On the other hand learned counsel for respondents submits that admittedly from perusal of the findings recorded in para 15 of the judgment recorded by the court below, a specific finding has been recorded that petitioner is not entitled to get benefit of Section 20 Sub Clause (4) of the Act as petitioner has not deposited on the first date of hearing the cost of suit and counsel fee, therefore, he is not entitled to get the benefit. The said fact has also been stated by petitioner himself in his statement that he has deposited rent from a particular date and there is no statement that he has deposited the total amount as required under the provision of the Act. 6. I have considered the submissions made on behalf of parties and have perused the record. The said fact has also been stated by petitioner himself in his statement that he has deposited rent from a particular date and there is no statement that he has deposited the total amount as required under the provision of the Act. 6. I have considered the submissions made on behalf of parties and have perused the record. From the perusal of the findings recorded by Judge, Small Causes Court as well as from the revisional court, a finding has been recorded that petitioner was a defaulter and admittedly has not deposited rent as it was required on the first date of hearing. It is settled in law that finding regarding default recorded by both the courts below are finding of fact and this Court while exercising power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India should not interfere. In para 15 of the judgment passed by revisional court, a finding has been recorded that petitioner has not deposited damages, advocate fee and cost of the suit, therefore, there is no full compliance of Section 20 Sub Clause (4), as such, it cannot be said that judgment and order passed by court below is not correct. 7. In my opinion, the findings recorded by court below are finding of fact, needs no interference by this Court. 8. The writ petition is devoid of merits and is hereby dismissed, however, without imposing any cost.