Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 2503 (ALL)

Sumitra Devi (Smt. ) v. Alok Kumar Gupta

2011-11-02

SATYENDRA SINGH CHAUHAN

body2011
Satyendra Singh Chauhan, J.:- Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and learned counsel for the respondent. 2. The revisionist feeling aggrieved with the order dated 13.10.2011 has preferred this revision. 3. First argument of the learned counsel for the revisionist is that benefit of Section 114 of Transfer of Property Act (for short "the Act") has been denied to the revisionist although an application was moved claiming benefit of the said provision in the year 2007. The said application remained pending and another application was also moved seeking time for filing written statement. Application for filing written statement was allowed on payment of cost of Rs.500/- and the application of the revisionist for depositing the rent was kept pending. The suit proceeded and ultimately proceedings stood concluded after recording evidence and thereafter the application moved by the revisionist under Section 114 of the Act was pressed which came to be rejected by means of the impugned order. Submission of the learned counsel for the revisionist is that by elaborate finding given by this Court in the case of Asghar Ali Vs. RazzakHussain and others, [ 2004 (1) ARC 411 ] dated 14.11.2003, it has been held that benefit of Section 114 is available to the revisionist but in spite of that the trial court has proceeded to ignore the aforesaid aspect of the matter. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that the suit has not been filed on the premise of default of rent but it has been filed on the premise that the landlord is not interested in keeping the revisionists as tenant and her tenancy has been determined on the basis of notice. It has also been submitted that benefit of Section 114 of the Act being available to the revisionist is neither in controversy nor to be decided by the trial court but in fact trial court has to proceed and decide the issue on it own merit as contemplated under the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act. 5. The application filed by the revisionist claiming benefit of Section 114 of the Act was deferred and later on when the same was pressed, benefit of the same has been denied to the revisionist. 5. The application filed by the revisionist claiming benefit of Section 114 of the Act was deferred and later on when the same was pressed, benefit of the same has been denied to the revisionist. Learned counsel for the respondent confines his argument to the effect that the suit is not on the premise of default of rent and neither the said point is to be adjudicated in the suit but in fact tenancy of the revisionist has to be determined and this has given cause of action to the proceedings. Since that plea is not covered under the provisions of U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, the tenancy is to be governed by the provisions of Transfer of Property Act. The landlord exercising power under the Transfer of Property Act has proceeded to determine tenancy of the revisionist. Application, therefore, moved by the revisionist claiming benefit of Section 114 of the Act is wholly misconceived and is not in reference to the merit of the matter is the contention of the respondent. Once the respondent himself has come forward with a specific case that the suit is on a different premise, then in these very special circumstances whether default can be considered as ground for eviction or not is to be considered. The revisionist is apprehensive only in respect of the default at this level. The said apprehension of the revisionist appears to be unfounded in view of the specific admission of the counsel for the respondent. Since the suit has to be decided on the basis of the determination of tenancy, the question sought to be adjudicated before this Court is not of much importance and neither goes to the root of the matter. Therefore, in these circumstances, I find that the suit itself would be decided by the trial court in accordance with own admission of the respondent and not on other grounds. 6. The revision is accordingly disposed of.