Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 2709 (ALL)

Naeem Ahmad @ Babloo v. Shajhan Begum

2013-10-30

VISHNU CHANDRA GUPTA

body2013
JUDGMENT Vishnu Chandra Gupta,J.: - Supplementary affidavit filed today by the revisionist is taken on record. 2. Heard Sri S.K. Lal assisted by Sri Sharad Chandra Srivastava learned counsel for the revisionist and Sri Varun Dev Sharma, learned counsel for the opposite party. 3. By means of present revision under Section 25 of Provincial Small Causes Courts Act, the order passed by Judge Small Causes/learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court No.4, Meerut, whereby striking out the defence of tenant revisionist under Order XV Rule 5 of CPC has been challenged. 4. The facts in short for deciding the present revision petition are that the revisionist is the tenant of the premises in question from the life time of the husband of opposite party Smt. Shajhan Begum. After the death of Rahees Ahmad, the opposite party Smt.Shajhan Begum wife of Rahees Ahmad filed the suit for recovery of rent against the revisionist on the ground that the revisionist has not paid the arrears of rent from 1st August, 2009. In this regard, notice was issued by landlady on 12.08.2010 demanding the rent and terminating the tenancy of revisionist. In reply to the notice dated 12.08.2010, the tenant had replied the notice on 20.08.2010. 5. Though the relationship between landlord and tenant is admitted by revisionist in reply notice with Smt. Shajhan Begum but he did not make the payment of rent and stated that he paid the rent of the premises to the son of Rahees Ahmad, namely, Nawaz Ahmad and continuously paid the rent till 2012. 6. After serving the notice, the suit was filed on 06.10.2010 by the opposite party. Thereafter, the revisionist filed his written statement disputing the ownership and relationship of landlord and tenant. So he did not deposit the arrears of rent in terms of the notice in compliance of Order XV Rule 5 of CPC on the first date of hearing. 7. It has been contended by learned counsel for the revisionist that there was Civil Suit No. 42 of 2011, Nawaz Ahmad vs. Rahees Ahmad going on in between Nawaz Ahmad, the son of Rahees Ahmad and wife of Rahees Ahmad, the present opposite party Smt. Shajhan Begum regarding the title of the tenanted premises, hence in these circumstances, the provision of Order XV Rule 5 of CPC would not be attracted in the present case. 8. 8. On the contrary, learned counsel appearing for the opposite party submits that once the revisionist admits the relationship of landlord and tenant in reply of the notice, he cannot subsequently change his stand by submitting his written statement. It was also submitted that once a notice has been received and reply has been submitted by the revisionist, it cannot be said that he was not aware that the opposite party is claiming herself to be the landlord and asking for the payment of rent. In such a situation, if rent is paid to Nawaz Ahmad after receiving of the notice that will not absolve from the liability of complying the provisions of Order XV Rule 5 of CPC. 9. I have considered the submissions at bar and gone through the impugned order and materials available on record. It is not in dispute that the rate of rent is Rs.1200/- p.m. This fact has been admitted by the revisionist as contained in the order itself that there exist relationship of landlord and tenant in between opposite party/respondent and tenant/revisionist. In such circumstances if after receipt of notice of opposite party/ landlady tenant chooses to make payment to a person other than landlady/opposite party without her consent shall not be deemed to be the payment of rent to landlady and will be deemed to have been paid to a person not authorized to receive the rent on behalf of the landlord. Therefore, the payment of rent to such a person would be on his own risk. The payment made to such a person cannot be treated to be paid to the landlord. 10. It is true that some litigation is going on, in between, Nawaz Ahmad and Rahees Ahmad, the erstwhile landlord during the pendency of that suit no interim order has been passed to this effect that the respondent is not entitled to receive the rent especially when there is a admission made by the tenant himself admitting the ownership of the opposite party Smt. Shajhan Begum. 11. Hence I do not find any merit in the revision petition. The revision petition lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed.