Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 541 (UTT)

JAGDISH KUMAR v. VIMMI BATRA

2013-08-21

B.S.VERMA

body2013
JUDGMENT Hon’ble B.S. Verma, J. (Oral) By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has sought a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned judgment and order dated 23.11.2012, passed by Judge, S.C.C., Civil Judge, Senior Division, Kotdwar, Garhwal, in Small Cause Suit No. 13 of 2007, Smt. Vimmi Batra Vs. Jagdish Kumar, as well as judgment and order dated 25.07.2013, passed by District Judge, Pauri Garhwal in Small Cause Revision No. 12 of 2012, Jagdish Kumar Vs. Smt. Vimmi Batra. 2. Briefly stated the facts giving rise to this writ petition are that respondent/plaintiff filed a suit against the petitioners for recovery of arrears of rent/mesne profits and ejectment, which was registered as S.C.C. suit No. 13 of 2007, of tenanted accommodation consisting of one room, a toilet and vacant space, which is part of house No. 163, Ward No. 3, Kotdwar, District Pauri Garhwal. 3. It was alleged in the plaint that the tenanted accommodation has been purchased by the plaintiff-Smt.Omwati Devi, W/o Shri Jagdish Prasad, vide sale deed dated 04.12.2000. It was further alleged that defendant/petitioner is a tenant in the said property from long time at the rate of Rs. 350/- per month and in addition to the rent, water tax and electricity charges is payable by the defendant/petitioner and defendant/petitioner has defaulted in payment of rent since 01.06.1992 and has not paid the water tax. In the sale deed, Omwati Devi (seller) has also given right of recovery of arrears of rent and water tax to the plaintiff/respondent. It is further stated in the plaint that rent was also deposited under Section 30 of U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulations of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972. 4. Tenancy of the petitioner was terminated vide notice dated 29.08.2007 and a S.C.C. suit no. 13 of 2007 was filed, demanding arrears of rent before Judge, S.C.C./Civil Judge (Sr. Div.), Pauri. Suit was contested by the petitioner by filing written statement. It was alleged in the written statement that petitioner is tenant at the rate of Rs. 25/- per month and not at Rs. 350/- per month. It is further alleged in the written statement that he has complied with the provisions of Section 20(4) of U.P. Act no. 13 of 1972. 5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, Judge, S.C.C., framed necessary issues. 25/- per month and not at Rs. 350/- per month. It is further alleged in the written statement that he has complied with the provisions of Section 20(4) of U.P. Act no. 13 of 1972. 5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, Judge, S.C.C., framed necessary issues. Both the parties have led their evidence before the Judge, S.C.C. and were cross-examined. Learned Judge, S.C.C. after perusal of the evidence and hearing the counsel for the parties, vide order dated 23.11.2012, decreed the suit on the ground that the petitioner/defendant has failed to file any document in support of his claim that he deposited the rent under Section 30 of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972. Even otherwise, the court has held that after termination of the tenancy if the rent is deposited under Section 30(1) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972, the same be treated as an illegal deposit. The petitioner ought to have deposited the rent under Section 20(4) of the Act or before the court and has held that the petitioner had defaulted in paying the rent. Learned Judge, S.C.C. has held that the petitioner is liable to pay rent at the rate of Rs. 30/- per month along with interest at the rate of Rs. 250/- per month. It was further held by the court that the tenant has constructed a tin shed in the property in question without the consent of the landlord, therefore, the same was ordered to be demolished. Aggrieved by order dated 23.12.2012, revision was preferred before District Judge, Pauri Garhwal. The revisional court after hearing the parties and after appraisal of evidence, dismissed the revision and held that the defendant/tenant has raised unauthorized construction and made material alterations in the tenanted premises, which diminished the value of the premises in question and affirmed the judgment of the trial court. Hence this writ petition. 6. I heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 7. In writ jurisdiction, this Court cannot sit as a court to appeal and cannot re-appreciate the evidence or reevaluate the evidence, so as to arrive at a different conclusion. Only perversity in the impugned order can be seen to find out whether there is a case of mis-reading of evidence by the courts concerned. It has been observed by the Apex Court in the case of Surya Dev Rai Vs. Only perversity in the impugned order can be seen to find out whether there is a case of mis-reading of evidence by the courts concerned. It has been observed by the Apex Court in the case of Surya Dev Rai Vs. Ram Chander Rai and others [(2003) 6 Supreme Court Cases, 675] that “Supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution is exercised for keeping the subordinate courts within the bounds of their jurisdiction. When a subordinate court has assumed a jurisdiction which it does not have or has failed to exercise a jurisdiction which it does not have or the jurisdiction though available is being exercised by the court in a manner not permitted by law and failure of justice or grave injustice has occasioned thereby, the High Court may step in to exercise its supervisory jurisdiction.” 8. In the case of Ranjeet Singh Vs. Ravi Prakash [(2004) 3 S.C.C. Page 682], the Apex Court has observed inter alia in paragraph 4 of the judgment that “an error which needs to be established by lengthy and complicated arguments or by indulging in a long drawn process of reasoning, cannot possibly be an error available for correction by writ of certiorari. If it is reasonably possible to form two opinions on the same material, the finding arrived at one way or the other, cannot be called a patent error.” 9. The Apex Court in the case of Shamshad Ahmad and others Vs. Tilak Raj Bajaj (Deceased) through L.RS. and others [(2008) 9 Supreme Court Cases, 1] while dealing with Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India has observed as under:- “38. Though powers of a High Court under Articles 226 and 227 are very wide and extensive over all courts and tribunals throughout the territories in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction, such powers must be exercised within the limits of law. The power is supervisory in nature. The High Court does not act as a court of appeal or a court of error. It can neither review nor reappreciate, nor reweigh the evidence upon which determination of a subordinate court or inferior tribunal purports to be based or to correct errors of fact or even of law and to substitute its own decision for that of the inferior court of tribunal. It can neither review nor reappreciate, nor reweigh the evidence upon which determination of a subordinate court or inferior tribunal purports to be based or to correct errors of fact or even of law and to substitute its own decision for that of the inferior court of tribunal. The powers are required to be exercised most sparingly and only in appropriate cases in order to keep the subordinate courts and inferior tribunals within the limits of law.” 10. I have perused the judgment and orders, passed by the courts below. In the case at hand, there is concurrent finding of fact recorded by the two courts below that the tenant has defaulted in payment of rent and has erected unauthorized construction over the vacant land without permission of the landlord. The findings have been recorded by the courts below on appraisal of evidence led by the parties. 11. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I find no error in the impugned orders, passed by the courts below. The writ petition is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed. The same is dismissed. 12. Learned counsel for the petitioner, at this stage seeks two years time to vacate the premises in question. In order to do complete justice, petitioner is granted one year six months time to vacate the premises from today, provided they furnish an undertaking before the Prescribed Authority within a period of 8 weeks to the effect that they will vacate the premises in question before the expiry of said period of one year six months and shall deliver its vacant and peaceful possession to the respondent/landlord and shall also continue to pay the damages to the landlord/respondent month to month till the expiry of the aforesaid period of one year six months.