Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1093 (ALL)

Devendra Sharma v. A. D. J.

2014-04-03

SUDHIR AGARWAL

body2014
JUDGMENT Sudhir Agarwal, J. 1. Writ petition has been restored to its original number vide order of date passed on recall application. As requested by learned counsel for the parties, the same is taken up for hearing and is being disposed of finally. 2. Heard Smt. Rinki Gupta, Advocate for petitioner and perused the record. 3. This is a tenant's writ petition who has lost in both the courts below. The respondent-landlord instituted Small Cause Suit No. 477 of 1998 seeking eviction of petitioner from accommodation in question, which is a shop forming part of House No. 127/217, 'U' Block, Nirala Nagar, Knapur Nagar. It is pleaded that petitioner is guilty of non-payment of rent and, therefore, is liable for ejectment on the ground available under Section 20(2)(a) of U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act, 1972") . 4. The petitioner contested suit by filing written statement and after considering evidence lead by both the parties the Trial Court formulated following three issues: ^^1- D;k fookfnr nqdku dk fdjk;k 500 : i;s gS] vFkok 250 : i;sA 2- D;k mRrjnkrk izfroknh fcy jlhn ds fdjk;k vnk dj jgk gSA 3- D;k izfroknh }kjk vfxze tek dh x;h /kujkf'k 900 : i;k fdjk, esa lek;ksftr fd;k tk ldrk gSA vkSj izfroknh us 9000 : i;s tek fd;k gSA** "1. Whether the rent for the disputed shop is Rs. 500 or Rs. 250? 2. Whether the answering defendant is making payment through bill receipt? 3. Whether the advance deposit of Rs. 900 made by the defendant can be adjusted with the rent and whether the defendant has deposited Rs. 9000?" (English translation by the Court) 5. The issue No. 1 was decided in favour of landlord holding that monthly rent of shop in dispute was Rs. 500/- and issue No. 2 was also decided in favour of landlord holding that tenant has not paid rent to landlord. It is in these circumstances, the suit was decreed by Trial Court vide judgment and order dated17.11.2001. The petitioner, thereafter, preferred SCC Revision No. 79 of 2001, which has also been dismissed by Additional District Judge, Court No. 14, Kanpur Nagar vide judgment dated 04.08.2003. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner stated that petitioner has paid a lump sum amount of Rs. The petitioner, thereafter, preferred SCC Revision No. 79 of 2001, which has also been dismissed by Additional District Judge, Court No. 14, Kanpur Nagar vide judgment dated 04.08.2003. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner stated that petitioner has paid a lump sum amount of Rs. 9000/- as advance to landlord but in this regard the Trial Court has observed that no evidence was adduced before court below regarding payment of Rs. 9000/-, in the form of receipt, acknowledgement etc. Therefore, the question of adjustment of Rs. 9,000/- against rent does not arise. Counsel for petitioner admitted that no such evidence was adduced before courts below. In these circumstances, I do not find any error apparent on the face of record in the impugned judgments so as to warrant interference under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India. 7. The scope of judicial review in these matter under Article 226/227 is very limited and narrow as discussed in detail by this Court in Jalil Ahmad Vs. 16th Additional District Judge, Kanpur Nagar and others, 2013(2) AWC 2168. There is nothing which may justify judicial review of orders impugned in this writ petition in the light of exposition of law, as discussed in the above judgment. 8. I, therefore, find no merit in the writ petition. Dismissed. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.