Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 2559 (ALL)

Gayatri Devi v. Satrughna Singh

2013-10-08

PANKAJ MITHAL

body2013
JUDGMENT Pankaj Mithal,J.: - Heard learned counsel for the plaintiff/revisionist and Sri Dinesh Pathak, learned counsel for the defendant/respondent. 2. The suit of the plaintiff/revisionist for arrears of rent and eviction has been dismissed by the court below. Therefore, she has preferred this revision under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Causes Court Act, 1887. 3. The admitted position is that the plaintiff/revisionist purchased the two shops in question from the previous owner Shashi Prakash Mishra, Advocate vide sale deed dated 9.8.2002. The defendant/respondent was a tenant in the said two shops from the time of Shashi Prakash Mishra at the rent of Rs.500/- per month each. The defendant/respondent had not committed any default in payment of rent to the previous owner. The plaintiff/revisionist on purchasing the said shops vide notice dated 10.10.2002 which was served upon defendant/respondent on 11.10.2002 informed him about the purchase of the said shops. Thereafter she terminated the tenancy of the defendant/respondent vide notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act dated 5.11.2003 which was served upon him 7.11.2003 on the ground that he has committed default in payment of rent. On the basis of the aforesaid notice, the plaintiff/revisionist instituted the present suit claiming arrears of rent from August, 2002 to October, 2003. 4. There were two points for consideration before the court below. First, regarding the rate of rent and second regarding default, if any, committed in its payment. 5. The court below held that as per the rent note between the tenant and the previous owner the tenancy had commenced at the rate of Rs.500/- per month for each shop. In respect of the second point the court below held that the plaintiff/revisionist is entitle to rent from the month of October, 2002 when she intimated the defendant/respondent about the purchase of the shop. The rent of October, 2002 was sent to her by bankers cheque which fact has not been denied by the plaintiff/revisionist herself. The rent thereafter, on refusal of the plaintiff/respondent to accept, has been deposited by the defendant/respondent in a Misc. Case in proceedings under Section 30 of the U.P. Act No.13 of 1972. 6. The question of rate of rent is basically one of fact which has been decided by the court below after taking into account the evidence placed before it. Case in proceedings under Section 30 of the U.P. Act No.13 of 1972. 6. The question of rate of rent is basically one of fact which has been decided by the court below after taking into account the evidence placed before it. The findings in regard cannot be disturbed in exercise of revisional jurisdiction, inasmuch as the revisional court is not empowered to reappraise the evidence and substitute its own finding in place of finding of the small causes court. 7. As regard the second point, it is admitted on record that the plaintiff/revisionist herself had not come in the witness to deny receiving of bankers cheque in respect of rent for the month of October, 2002. The rent prior to October, 2002 could not have been remitted to the plaintiff/revisionist as she had informed of purchase of the shop to the defendant/respondent only vide notice 10.10.2000. There is no complaint of the previous owner that he has not received the rent for the months of August and September, 2002. It is also admitted that after October, 2002 the rent is being deposited by the defendant/respondent in a Misc. Case No.17 of 2003 in proceedings under Section 30 of the U.P. Act No.13 of 1972. The said deposit in no way has been shown to be illegal. 8. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I find no merit in this revision worth interfering under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Causes Court Act. The revision as such, is dismissed.