Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 1833 (ALL)

Ram Krishna Advaita Ashram v. Bhagwati Prasad

2013-07-11

RAJES KUMAR

body2013
JUDGMENT Rajes Kumar,J. Heard Sri C.K. Parekh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri R.P.S. Kushwaha, learned counsel on behalf of respondent. 2. The petitioner is the landlord of the Building No. D-45/6, Luxa Road, Varanasi in which of a Shop (No. 5) on the ground floor of the Building, the respondent was the tenant at the rate of Rs.17/= per month since 1973. It was the case of the petitioner that the tenant has stopped paying the rent since 1992 for which repeated demand was made and thereafter a notice for the payment of the rent, damages and for eviction of the premises was sent to the respondent on 25th May, 1995, which has been served on the respondent on 16th June, 1995. Thereafter, Suit No. 88 of 1995 was filed for eviction on the ground of default in making the payment of rent. In the plaint, it was alleged that the petitioner is a religious and charitable institution being branch of Ram Krishna Mutth, West Bengal and, therefore, the provisions of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 do not apply. The Judge, Small Causes Court vide order dated 29th August, 2003 rejected the suit. The Judge, Small Causes Court held that since the plaintiff was a religious institution, therefore, the provisions of Act No. 13 of 1972 do not apply, but dismissed the suit on the ground that the amount of rent has already been deposited under Section 30 of Act No. 13 of 1972, thus, the defendant-tenant was not in default of payment of the rent. Being aggrieved by the order of the Judge, Small Causes Court, the petitioner filed the revision being Revision No. 16 of 2003, which has been allowed by the order dated 22nd December, 2004 by setting aside the order of the Judge, Small Causes Court, dated 29th August, 2003 and remanding back the matter to the Judge, Small Causes Court. The revisional court has observed that the Judge, Small Causes Court has recorded a contradictory finding. The revisional court has observed that the Judge, Small Causes Court has recorded a contradictory finding. On the one hand, it has been held that since the plaintiff-landlord is a religious institution, therefore, the provisions of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 do not apply and on the other hand, the deposit made under Section 30 of Act No. 13 of 1972 has been held valid and the defendant-tenant has not been treated as defaulter and on this ground the matter has been remanded back to the Judge, Small Causes Court. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there was no factual dispute which required any evidence. The Judge, Small Causes Court, while recording categorical finding, has held that the landlord is a religious institution and, thus, the provisions of Act No. 13 of 1972 do not apply, therefore, the revisional court should have examined whether the view of the Judge, Small Causes Court that the defendant-tenant was not in default as the amount of rent has been deposited under Section 30 of Act No. 13 of 1972 was justified or not, but instead of adjudicating this aspect of the matter, the revisional court has illegally remanded back the the matter to the Judge, Small Causes Court. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent relied upon the order of the revisional court and trial court. 5. I have considered rival submissions and perused the impugned order as well as materials on record. 6. In my view, in the facts and circumstances, the order of the revisional court is not sustainable. There is no factual dispute, which requires any fresh evidence and, therefore, the remand of the case is wholly unjustified. The Judge, Small Causes Court has categorically held that the landlord is a religious institution and as such the provisions of Act No. 13 of 1972 do not apply. The revisional court has to examine on these facts whether the view of the Judge, Small Causes Court that the defendant-tenant was not in default in paying the rent because the rent has been deposited under Section 30 of Act No. 13 of 1972 within time is justified or not. 7. In view of the above, the remand of the case is not sustainable. In the result, the writ petition is allowed. 7. In view of the above, the remand of the case is not sustainable. In the result, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 22nd December, 2004 is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the revisional court to decide the Revision NO. 16 of 2003, Ram Krishna Adwait Ashram v. Bhagwati Prasad, in accordance to law, after giving opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned in the light of the observations made above. 8. Since the parties are represented, they are directed to appear before the revisional court on 22nd July, 2013. No fresh notice is required to be issued to the parties. The revisional court is directed to decide the revision expeditiously preferably within three months thereafter.