Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 3232 (ALL)

Ravindra Kumar v. Vinod Kumar Agrawal

2014-10-29

RAN VIJAI SINGH

body2014
JUDGMENT Ran Vijai Singh,J. Heard Sri B.N. Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. Through this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for issuing a writ of certiorari quashing the orders dated 1.3.2013 passed by the Judge Small Causes Court in S.C.C. Suit No. 06 of 2009 (Vinod Kumar Agarwal Vs. Narendra Swarnkar) and order dated 23.7.2014 passed by the District Judge, Jalaun at Orai in S.C.C. Revision No. 08/2013 (Ravindra Kumar Vs.Vinod Kumar Agarwal and another). 3. Vide order dated 1.3.2013, an application filed by the petitioner under Order 1, Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been rejected. Whereas by the subsequent order dated 23.7.2014, revision filed by the petitioner against the order dated 1.3.2013 has been dismissed. 4. While rejecting the application and dismissing the revision, it has been observed by the courts below that shop no. 609 is divided in three separate shops i.e. 609/1, 609/2 and 609/3. The shop no. 609/1 is in possession of Sri Ravindra Kumar (the petitioner), 609/2 is in the possession of Sri Narendra Kumar and 609/3 is in the possession of the landlord. For both the shops no. 609/1 and 609/2, two separate suits have been filed for their eviction impleading them individually on the ground of default in payment of rent. In the suit filed by the landlord ( the respondent no. 1), against the respondent no. 2, the petitioner has filed an impleadment application saying that he is also tenant of the said shop and is necessary party. Before the courts below, assessment register was produced and on the basis of that, concurrent finding has been recorded by both the courts below that the shop no. 609 is divided in three parts and there are two separate tenants the petitioner and Sri Narendra Kumar (the respondent no. 2) and the petitioner is not necessary party. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that various receipts showing the payment of rent to the landlord with respect to shop no. 609/2 have not been considered by the courts below. 6. Taking note of the above submissions, on 7.10.2014, learned counsel for the petitioner was granted two weeks time to file supplementary affidavit bringing on record the receipts, which according to him, have not been taken note of by the courts below, although they were part of the record. 7. 609/2 have not been considered by the courts below. 6. Taking note of the above submissions, on 7.10.2014, learned counsel for the petitioner was granted two weeks time to file supplementary affidavit bringing on record the receipts, which according to him, have not been taken note of by the courts below, although they were part of the record. 7. Pursuant thereto, a supplementary affidavit has been filed annexing therewith three receipts issued by Sri Vinod Kumar Garg in favour of Sri Ravindra Kumar Soni for house no. 632. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was the sole tenant of shop no. 632. 8. From the perusal of the record, it transpires that number of shop has been later on changed as shop no. 609, which has further been divided in three parts, i.e., shop nos. 609/1, 609/2 and 609/3. In shop no. 609/1, the petitioner is shown to be the tenant, whereas in shop no. 609, Sri Narendra Kumar is shown to be the tenant. The petitioner's application filed under Order 1, Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure for impleading him in the case where the eviction has been sought with respect to shop no. 609/2 has been rejected, taking note of the fact that in the Assessment Register, shop no. 609/2 is recorded in the name of Sri Narendra Kumar and not Sri Ravindra Kumar. Coupled with the facts, two separate suits with respect to shop no. 609/1 and shop no. 609/2 have been filed against both the brothers and those suits are pending. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner, taking shelter of paragraph 7 of the judgment rendered by this Court in Banwari Lal Associates (P) Ltd. Vs. Basanti Devi Family Trust, Ghaziabad and Others ( 2006 (2)AWC 1811 ) has tried to submit that the rent receipts ought to have been considered by the courts below. In view of the fact that the receipts, which have been brought on record through supplementary affidavit, indicate that those receipts are with respect to old shop no. 632, therefore, that will have no relevance after the subsequent development of conversion of shop no. 632 into shop no. 609 and later on, further division into shop nos. 609/1, 609/2 and 609/3. 10. Both the courts below have recorded a concurrent finding of fact that the shop no. 632, therefore, that will have no relevance after the subsequent development of conversion of shop no. 632 into shop no. 609 and later on, further division into shop nos. 609/1, 609/2 and 609/3. 10. Both the courts below have recorded a concurrent finding of fact that the shop no. 609 has been divided into three parts and that finding could not be successfully assailed by the learned counsel for the petitioner by producing any material showing that shop no. 609 has not been divided in three parts, therefore, no infirmity can be attached to the impugned orders. 11. The writ petition fails and it is hereby dismissed.