Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 2680 (ALL)

Om Prakash Bhardwaj v. Shri Lal Man Sahu

2012-11-20

SUDHIR AGARWAL

body2012
JUDGMENT Sudhir Agarwal, J. 1. Heard Sri Neelabh Srivastava, Advocate, holding brief of Sri Anil Bhushan, learned counsel for petitioner and perused the record. 2. Petitioner's application seeking ejectment of respondent-tenant from the accommodation in question i.e., a shop was dismissed by Trial Court vide judgment dated 7.4.1999 holding that there was no default and monthly rent was Rs. 120/- per month and not Rs. 200/- per month which is claimed by petitioner and the said judgment having been confirmed by Revisional Court vide judgment dated 31.1.2000, the present writ petition has been filed challenging both the judgments. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that in case the entire amount is not deposited before the first date of hearing, the tenant is liable for ejectment and placed reliance on Apex Court's decision in Khadi Gram Udyog Trust Vs. Ram Chandraji Virajman Mandir (1978) 1 SCC 44 . 4. However, before applying the said judgment it has to be demonstrated by the petitioner that what was the actual amount due which was not paid by respondent-tenant. In the present case, petitioner has admittedly raised claim on the basis of monthly rent of Rs. 200/- though this claim of petitioner has been found disproved by the Trial Court and it has recorded a finding of fact that monthly rent was Rs. 120/- per month and the aforesaid finding has been confirmed by the Revisional Court. Before this Court, learned counsel for petitioner could not show that the aforesaid finding recorded by Courts below is perverse or contrary to material on record warranting interference on this aspect. Even rate of rent determined by Court below has not been shown to be erroneous or illegal and learned counsel for petitioner has miserably failed to point out any deficiency in the payment of rent on the part of respondent-tenant justifying ejectment under Section 22 (a) of U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as "Act, 1972"). 5. Since the findings of facts have been recorded by both the Courts below which have not been shown perverse or contrary to material on record. I do not find any reason to interfere. The scope of judicial review under Article 227 is very limited and narrow as discussed in detail by this Court in Writ-A No. 11365 of 1998 (Jalil Ahmad Vs. 16th Addl. Distt. I do not find any reason to interfere. The scope of judicial review under Article 227 is very limited and narrow as discussed in detail by this Court in Writ-A No. 11365 of 1998 (Jalil Ahmad Vs. 16th Addl. Distt. Judge, Kanpur Nagar and others) decided on 30.7.2012. There is nothing which may justify judicial review of order impugned in this writ petition in the light of exposition of law, as discussed in the above judgment. 6. In view of above, I do not find any reason to interfere. 7. Dismissed. 8. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.