Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 2572 (ALL)

Jag Mohan Malhotra v. Jai Kkumar Mishra

2013-10-09

SANJAY MISRA

body2013
JUDGMENT Sanjay Misra,J.: - Heard Sri Kshitij Shailendra learned counsel for the defendant revisionist and Sri P.K. Jain learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri A.K. Tripathi for the plaintiff opposite parties. Notice need not be issued to the other opposite parties who are referred as proforma opposite parties. 2. This revision under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Causes Court Act has been filed against the order dated 01.08.2013 passed by the Additional District Judge, Court no. 7, Moradabad in SCC Suit no. 06 of 2003 (Jai Kumar Mishra Vs Jag Mohan Malhotra and others) whereby the application paper no. 136-C filed by the defendant revisionist has been rejected. 3. Learned counsel for the defendant revisionist has submitted that by the application 136-C the defendant wanted to bring on record certain judgments and documents pertaining to other shops situated in the very same building where the defendant revisionist is a tenant of two shops. He states that by the impugned order the said application has been illegally rejected. He refers to paragraph 5 of the plaint and the annexures annexed with the plaint to state that the one of the claim of the plaintiff respondent was that provisions of U.P. Act no. 13 of 1972 (Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972) do not apply because the rent of the premises in question is more than Rs. 2000/-. 4. Learned counsel states that a perusal of the annexure which has been filed along with the plaint indicates that there are many shops whose rent is not above Rs. 2000/- and the rent of all the shops in the building collectively comes to Rs. 2070/- and more. He therefore submits that the judgments and documents pertaining to the said shops were necessary to be brought on record because they are independent shops hence the amount of rent of the entire building cannot be considered for the purpose of bringing the shop of the defendant petitioner outside the purview of U.P. Act no. 13 of 1972 (Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972). 5. 13 of 1972 (Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972). 5. Sri P.K. Jain learned counsel for the plaintiff respondent submits that the suit is for eviction, arrears of rent for use and occupation and is pending since 2003 and already ten years have passed therefore under such circumstances he would have no objection if the documents/judgments which the defendant petitioners wants to bring on record are taken on record by the Trial Court. 6. In view of the aforesaid submission made and agreed by learned counsel for the parties this revision is allowed. The impugned order dated 01.08.2013 passed by the Additional District Judge, Court no. 7, Moradabad in SCC Suit no. 06 of 2003 (Jai Kumar Mishra Vs Jag Mohan Malhotra and others) rejecting the application 136-C is set aside and as agreed between the parties the documents/judgments which were sought to be brought on record by the defendant revisionist by his application 136-C may be taken on record by the Trial Court and considered in accordance with law. 7. The revision stands allowed as above. 8. It is also provided that since the SCC Suit is more than ten years old the court below should decide the suit as expeditiously as possible without granting any undue adjournment to any of the parties and any adjournment granted should be for cogent reasons to be recorded in the ordersheet. 9. No order is passed as to costs.