Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 1827 (ALL)

Ashok Monga v. Sabir Ali

2011-08-01

ABHINAVA UPADHYA

body2011
Abhinava Upadhya, J.— Heard. Cause shown is sufficient to condone the delay. The delay in filing the revision is condoned. The present revision has been filed against the order dated 11.2.2011 passed by the learned Additional District Judge/Small Causes Judge, Court No. 10, Ghaziabad in SCC Case No. 38 of 2007 (Ashok Moga Vs. Sri Sabir Ali), by which the said suit of the petitioner for arrears of rent and ejectment against the respondent-defendant has been dismissed. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that he is the owner of the property in question and the defendant-respondent upon notice, has not deposited the rent. The property in question is stated to be constructed in the year 1975 to which the petitioner has not objected and, therefore, it has been held that Act No. 13 of 1972 is applicable. The court below has recorded a finding that initially the property was that of the Ghaziabad Development Authority and by way of a sale deed the said property was sold to one Subhash Chand Ahuja which was subsequently sold to the revisionist. The ground for asking ejectment was due to the fact that the petitioner did not deposit the rent. Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that the revisionist in his written statement had disputed the ownership of the respondent over the property. However, at the time of final decision a finding has been recorded that the tenant respondent has accepted the ownership of the revisionist and at the first instance, i.e., on 29.8.2007, the entire arrears of rent has been deposited. The revisionist during the course of argument has also accepted the fact that the property in question is old and, therefore, Act No. 13 of 1972 is applicable. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is based on written statement since he has denied the factum of ownership of the revisionist and, therefore, the suit was maintainable and that was a good ground for ejectment of the respondent-defendant. On the contrary the court has recorded a categorical finding that the defendant has accepted the ownership of the revisionist over the property in question and has also deposited the rent at the first instance. There is no error in the impugned order calling for any interference by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition is misconceived and is accordingly dismissed. _