Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 1762 (ALL)

Arban Kumar v. Ram Bharose lal Singhal & another

2011-07-21

S.K.GUPTA

body2011
Shashi Kant Gupta, J.;- The present writ petition has been filed against the judgment and order dated 17.07.2008 passed by the learned Judge Small Causes Court, Bulandshahar in Suit No.40 of 2005 (Ram Bharose Lal and another Vs. Arban Kumar) which was decreed in favour of the landlords-respondents and the judgment and order dated 11.12.2009 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Court no.1, Bulandshahar in Revision No.19 of 2008 (Arban Kumar Vs. Ram Bharose Lal and another) which was dismissed. 2. The brief facts of the case, as set out in the writ petition are as follows: 3. A suit for arrears of rent and ejectment was filed by the landlords-respondents against the petitioner-tenant in the Court of Judge Small Causes Court, Bulandshahar on the ground of sub-letting the shop in dispute to his brother Anil Kumar by the petitioner-tenant. The said suit was decreed vide the judgment and order dated 17.7.2008 wherein it was held that the shop in dispute was sub-let by the petitioner-tenant to his brother namely Anil Kumar. 4. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 17.7.2008, the petitioner-tenant filed a revision before the District Judge, Bulandshahar. The revision was later on transferred to the court of Additional District Judge, Bulandshahar. The Revisional Court, vide the judgment and order dated 11.12.2009 dismissed the said revision and confirmed the order passed by the Trial Court. Hence, the present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner-tenant. 5. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner-tenant, learned counsel for the respondents-landlords and perused the material available on record. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner-tenant has submitted that the orders passed by the Trial Court as well as by the Revisional Court are illegal and against the material available on record. He further submitted that the shop in dispute was in the joint tenancy of the petitioner-tenant as well as his brother Anil Kumar. This fact was also in the knowledge of the respondents-landlords that the brother of the petitioner-tenant namely Anil Kumar was carrying on his business from the shop in dispute but the respondents-landlords never raised any objection. 7. Learned counsel for the respondents-landlords has submitted that judgments and orders passed by the Courts below are legally sound and in accordance with law and the finding of facts recorded by the Courts below does not require any interference. 8. 7. Learned counsel for the respondents-landlords has submitted that judgments and orders passed by the Courts below are legally sound and in accordance with law and the finding of facts recorded by the Courts below does not require any interference. 8. A bare perusal of the records clearly shows that the a written agreement was entered into between the landlords-respondents and the petitioner with regard to the shop in dispute wherein joint tenancy has not been shown. The record further reveals that before filing the suit, a notice was sent by the respondents-landlords to the petitioner-tenant alleging that the shop in question was illegally sub-let by the petitioner-tenant to his brother Anil Kumar. The said notice was duly received by the petitioner-tenant. The petitioner-tenant denied that the shop in dispute was sub-let to his brother Anil Kumar and stated that it is in his exclusive possession. The record further reveals that in the written statement filed by the petitioner-tenant before the Trial Court, he for the first time, pleaded that the shop in dispute was in the joint tenancy between him and his brother Anil Kumar and the rent was being paid by his brother Anil Kumar. The contradictory stand was taken by the petitioner-tenant from time to time, in reply to the notice, which was sent by the respondents-landlords as stated above and in the written statement which was filed by the petitioner-tenant before the Courts below is inconsistent and there is material contradiction in the statement of the petitioner-tenant. There is nothing on record to show that the rent receipt was ever issued in favour of Anil Kumar and he was treated as joint tenant. After going through the material available on record, both the Courts below have recorded concurrent findings of facts that the shop in question was sub-let by the petitioner-tenant to his brother Anil Kumar. The Courts below have also given cogent, convincing and satisfactory reasons. The findings recorded by the Courts below are based on the evidence and the materials available on record. As such, no adverse inference can be drawn by this Court while exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 9. No other point has been pressed by the learned counsel for the petitioner-tenant. 10. I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the orders impugned in the writ petition. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. 11. 9. No other point has been pressed by the learned counsel for the petitioner-tenant. 10. I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the orders impugned in the writ petition. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioner made a request that at least one year's time may be granted to him to vacate the disputed shop so that his business may not suffer adversely. Learned counsel for the respondents-landlords has opposed the said plea but he has submitted that he has no objection if some reasonable time is granted to the petitioner-tenant to vacate the shop in dispute. 12. As agreed by the learned counsel for the respondents-landlords, six months' time is granted to the petitioner-tenant to vacate the shop in dispute provided the petitioner-tenant gives his undertaking in the form of an affidavit before the Judge Small Causes Court, Bulandshahar within one month from today specifically stating therein that he will vacate and handover the peaceful possession of the shop in dispute to the landlords/respondents without inducting any third person within a period of six months from today and will pay the entire arrears of rent including the current rent at the rate of Rs.3,500/- per month upto the date of delivery of the vacant possession of the disputed premises within one month from today. . 13. In case of default in compliance of the aforementioned conditions, the stay order shall automatically be vacated and it would be open to the respondents-landlords to proceed to evict the petitioner-tenant, if necessary, through coercive process with the aid of Police force.