Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 3659 (ALL)

Ashok Kumar Agarwal v. Mansha Devi

2014-12-08

RAN VIJAI SINGH

body2014
JUDGMENT Ran Vijai Singh,J. Heard Sri Krishna Bihari, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Girja Shankar Srivastava, learned counsel appearing for the respondent no. 1. 2. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for issuing a writ of certiorari quashing the orders dated 7.7.2014 passed by the Judge Small Causes Court on an application no. 56-Ka in SCC Suit No. 84/2006 and order dated 8.9.2014 passed by the District Judge, Allahabad in SCC Revision No. 16 of 2014 (Ashok Kumar Vs. Mansha Devi and others). 3. Vide order dated 7.7.2014, application filed by the petitioner under Order 1, Rule 10 of Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as ' C.P.C.) has been rejected. Whereas by the subsequent order dated 8.9.2014, revision filed by the petitioner against the order dated 7.7.2014 has been dismissed. 4. The facts giving rise to this case are that the respondent no. 1 has filed suit before the Judge Small Causes Court against the respondent no. 3 seeking eviction of the petitioner on the ground of default in payment of rent, taxes and damages etc, which was numbered as Suit No. 84/2006. In the aforesaid suit, the petitioner has filed an application under Order 1, Rule 10 of C.P.C. alleging that the petitioner happens to be owner of the house in dispute and knowing it very well, the petitioner was not impleaded as a party. To this application, an objection was filed by the otherside denying the allegation made in the application with the further averments that the respondent no. 1-plaintiff happens to be owner of the house and the defendant happens to be tenant. It has also been stated that the respondent no. 1 has filed another suit for eviction of the petitioner treating him as a licensee. After considering the case of the parties, the application of the petitioner has been rejected on the ground that the applicant has not filed any document from which it can be ascertained that the petitioner is the owner of the house. Aggrieved petitioner has filed revision before the District Judge, Allahabad, which was numbered as SCC Revision No.16 of 2014 (Ashok Kumar Vs. Mansha Devi and others). The District Judge too has dismissed the revision taking note of the fact that it is the suit of eviction on the ground of default in payment of rent etc. Aggrieved petitioner has filed revision before the District Judge, Allahabad, which was numbered as SCC Revision No.16 of 2014 (Ashok Kumar Vs. Mansha Devi and others). The District Judge too has dismissed the revision taking note of the fact that it is the suit of eviction on the ground of default in payment of rent etc. and the suit is decided in between the landlord and tenant and who is real owner of the property is not lis between the parties. It is also observed by the learned District Judge, that utmost the petitioner's status can be of a co-owner and if one co-owner has filed suit seeking eviction of a tenant that is sufficient and taking note of that, revision has been dismissed. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner has been realizing the rent from Kali Charan and in case, suit is decreed, successor of Kali Charan may recover the rent, which has been realized by the petitioner. Sri Srivastava, who appears for the respondent, has invited attention of the court towards the averments made in paragraph 8 of the writ petition in which it is stated that Kali Charan has died in the year 1982 and alleged receipt which is said to be issued in favour of the Kali Charan is of the year 1983. In the submissions of Sri Srivastava, the receipt appears to be bogus and forged. 6. Be that as it may, since the petitioner is not the party in the suit, therefore decree in between the parties will not have any binding effect upon the petitioner. So far as the ownership of the house in between the petitioner and respondent no. 1 is concerned for that there is a separate forum and to that extent, I find substance in the submissions of Sri Srivastava who submitted that the Judge Small Causes Court has no jurisdiction to decide the title between the parties. In his submissions, in the eventuality of serious dispute of title, the suit has to be decided by the civil court having competent jurisdiction. In support of his submissions, he has placed reliance upon the few judgments of this Court in Kailash Chand Vs. Kedar Nath Jain and others 1992 (1) ARC 47, Sharafat Hussain and others Vs. XIth Additional District Judge, Moradabad and others, 1992 (2) ARC 307, Mohd. Farooq Vs. In support of his submissions, he has placed reliance upon the few judgments of this Court in Kailash Chand Vs. Kedar Nath Jain and others 1992 (1) ARC 47, Sharafat Hussain and others Vs. XIth Additional District Judge, Moradabad and others, 1992 (2) ARC 307, Mohd. Farooq Vs. District Judge, Allahabad and others 1992 (2) ARC 574 , Jiya Lal Vs. XIth Additional District Judge, Meerut and others 1994 (1) ARC 280 as well as of the Apex Court in Laxmishankar Harishankar Bhatt Vs. Yashram Vasta (dead) by L.Rs. 1995 (1) ARC 53 Supreme Court. 7. In view of foregoing discussions, I do not find any error in the impugned orders. 8. The writ petition lacks merit and it is hereby dismissed.