Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 543 (UTT)

Rajveer Singh v. Laxmi Devi

2013-08-21

PRAFULLA C.PANT

body2013
Judgment Prafulla C. Pant, J. This revision, filed under Section 25 of Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887, is directed against the judgment and decree dated 21.05.2013, passed by the Judge, Small Cause Court/2nd Additional District Judge, Haridwar, in SCC Suit No. 13 of 2011, whereby the trial court has decreed the suit for eviction of the defendant from the premises (detailed in the plaint) situated near Mastram Gali, Bhopatwala, Haridwar. The trial court has further decreed the suit for arrears of rent amounting Rs. 1,96,482/- and also for mesne profits @ Rs. 633.33 per day. 2) Heard learned counsel for the parties, and the intervener, and perused the lower court record. 3) Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff Laxmi Devi filed Small Cause Suit No. 13 of 2011, against the defendant Rajveer Singh (present revisionist) for eviction from the premises in suit situated near Mastram Gali, Bhopatwala, Haridwar, with the pleadings that the plaintiff is the owner and landlady of the premises in question, which were given on rent to the defendant Rajveer Singh on 01.06.2010. According to the plaintiff, the rate of rent was Rs. 18,363.63/- per month. It is further pleaded in the plaint that out of Rs.2,02,200/- rent payable for 11 months, for which, the premises were taken on rent by the defendant, only Rs. 60,000/- was paid, and the defendant committed default in making payment of rest of the sum. It is further pleaded that the tenancy of the defendant was terminated by getting served notices issued under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, by the plaintiff, and the suit was filed for eviction of the defendant, and recovery of arrears of rent and mesne profits. 4) The defendant contested the suit before the trial court, and filed his written statement. The defendant admitted that he was tenant of the premises, but disputed the rate of rent. According to the defendant, rate of rent was Rs. 6000/- per month only. It is further pleaded by the defendant that in fact the owner of the property in suit was not plaintiff (Luxmi Devi) but one Raghuviri Devi. 5) The trial court, after recording evidence and hearing the parties, gave the finding on the Point of Determination No.1 that the defendant was the tenant of the plaintiff on rent @ Rs. 18363.36/- per month. 5) The trial court, after recording evidence and hearing the parties, gave the finding on the Point of Determination No.1 that the defendant was the tenant of the plaintiff on rent @ Rs. 18363.36/- per month. It was further found that the defendant committed default of payment of rent. The trial court further found that the tenancy of the defendant stood terminated vide notice given to the defendant under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, and decreed the suit for eviction, as well as for recovery of arrears of rent and mesne profits. 6) It is relevant to mention here that during the pendency of this revision, an application for imleadment was moved by the third party Rughuviri Devi stating that she is the owner of the property in suit. She sought impleadment in this revision. 7) In reply to the argument of the third party, learned counsel for the plaintiff/respondent submitted that Rughuviri Devi earlier filed a Suit No. 192 of 2010, before the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Haridwar, against the present plaintiff and she has already lost the suit. 8) In the above circumstances, the application moved by Raghuviri Devi for her impleadment at the revisional stage, is liable to be dismissed. 9) On the merits of the revision, after hearing the parties and going through the lower court record, this Court finds that the defendant has admitted that he is the tenant of the house in question. The plaintiff Luxmi Devi has proved on the record that she purchased the property in dispute from Raghuviri Devi through registered sale deed dated 01.04.1999, and the tenant (defendant) was inducted in the property much thereafter. 10) Having reassessed the evidence on record, this Court is of the view that the trial court has rightly held that there is a relationship of landlord and tenant between the plaintiff and the defendant, and not between the third party Raghuviri Devi and the plaintiff. Needless to this, intricate questions of title are not required to be seen in the Small Cause Court proceedings but what can be seen is the relationship of landlord and tenant between the plaintiff and the defendant, as to whether, such relationship exists or not. A person may be the owner but may not be the landlord of the property. Needless to this, intricate questions of title are not required to be seen in the Small Cause Court proceedings but what can be seen is the relationship of landlord and tenant between the plaintiff and the defendant, as to whether, such relationship exists or not. A person may be the owner but may not be the landlord of the property. It is a settled principle of law that landlord or the landlady is the person to whom, rent is payable by the tenant. 11) However, as far as the rate of rent is concerned, this Court is of the view that the rate of rent @ Rs. 18,363.63/- per month alleged by the plaintiff is not proved on the record, as there is no such receipt of such a big amount, shown by the plaintiff issued to the defendant. But, as far as the rate of rent @ Rs. 6000/- per month is concerned, said rate of rent is admitted to the defendant Rajveer Singh. As such, what is proved on the record is that actual rate of rent is Rs. 6000/- per month, and not Rs.18363.63/- per month. It is also relevant to mention here that during the arguments, learned counsel for the revisionist (defendant) stated that today possession of the property has been handed over to the plaintiff peacefully. 12) In the above circumstances, this revision is disposed of, with the direction that the decree of eviction passed by the Judge, Small Cause Court/2nd Additional District Judge, Haridwar, in SCC Suit No. 13 of 2011, is hereby affirmed. But the judgment and decree relating to recovery of rent and mesne profits is modified, and it is directed that the defendant/revisionist shall pay arrears of rent and mesne profits only @ Rs.6000/- per month w.e.f. 01.05.2011, till the possession was handed over to the plaintiff. In respect of rest of the sum directed to be paid by the trial court, the impugned decree stands set aside. Costs easy. (Misc. Application (CLMA) No. 8784 of 2013 and Stay Vacation Application (CLMA) No. 8854 of 2013, stand disposed of). The application moved by the third party also stands dismissed.