Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 3661 (ALL)

Kant Trivedi v. Vijay Rani Tandon

2014-12-08

PANKAJ MITHAL

body2014
JUDGMENT Pankaj Mithal,J. Heard Sri Ravi Sahu, learned counsel for the defendant revisionist. 2. The delay of 8 days in filing the revision has been explained sufficiently. 3. Accordingly, delay is condoned. 4. Delay Condonation Application No.401445 of 2014 is allowed. 5. Office to allot regular number to the revision. 6. The defendant revisionist has preferred this revision under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) against the order of the court below dated 01.09.2014 passed in SCC Suit No.214 of 2012, Vijay Rani Tandon Vs. Sri Kant Trivedi. 7. The court below by the said order has rejected the application of the defendant revisionist under Section 23 of the Act. 8. The submission of learned counsel for the defendant revisionist is that a dispute of title over the property is involved in the suit and therefore, the Small Causes Court has no jurisdiction over it but to return the plaint. 9. There is no dispute that the previous owner Bariyam Singh has transferred the shop in dispute in favour of the plaintiff respondent vide registered sale deed dated 29.11.1978. The plaintiff respondent has let out the same to the defendant revisionist under the lease deed dated 15.08.2011. 10. Once the defendant revisionist enters into an agreement of tenancy with the plaintiff respondent and the same is not denied, he accepts the plaintiff respondent to be the owner and the landlord. It is also admitted that he had initially paid rent to the plaintiff respondent but has subsequently stopped paying rent to her for the reason that Kuldeep Singh and Jaspal Singh the sons of the previous owner started claiming to be rightful owners. 11. In view of above agreement, under which the defendant revisionist accepts the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties, the court below has not committed any error in rejecting the application under Section 23 of the Act inasmuch as the suit for arrears of rent and eviction is supposed to be decided on the basis of the above relationship and the question of title does not get involved at all. 12. The revision has no merit and is dismissed.