Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1691 (ALL)

Prem Prakash v. Vijay Rani

2015-07-01

MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA

body2015
JUDGMENT Manoj Kumar Gupta, J. The petitioner aggrieved by an order dated 4 April 2015 passed by the Additional District Judge, Court No. 8, Agra in SCC Revision No. 83 of 2011, rejecting the application purportedly filed under Order 41 Rule 27 read with section 151 C.P.C., has approached this Court invoking its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution. 2. It transpires from the record that the plaintiff respondents instituted a suit for recovery of arrears of rent and for ejectment against the petitioner therein. The Additional Judge Small Causes Court, Agra by judgment dated 8 September 2011 decreed the suit for ejectment and for arrears of rent. A specific finding has been recorded that the first date of construction of the building would be deemed to be in the year 1987 in which the building was assessed for the first time to municipal taxes. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the petitioner here had filed a revision, which is pending before Additional District Judge, Court No. 8, Agra. During the pendency of the revision, an application 25 Ga for summoning the entire record pertaining to the property from the office of Joint Housing Commissioner, Agra Zone, U.P. Awas Evam Vikas Parishad, Agra, was filed by the petitioner. It is alleged in the application that during the pendency of the revision, it came to the notice of the petitioner that the demised premises had been in existence since the year 1983 and in respect of which the landlord had taken water and electric connections in the year 1983. It is further alleged that the petitioner herein sought information from the U.P. Awas Evam Vikas Parishad under Right to Information Act, but the required information was not furnished to him by stating that such information is not available on record. In these circumstances, the application was filed for summoning the records from the office of the U.P. Awas Evam Vikas Parishad. 3. The revisional Court by impugned order dated 4 April 2015, has rejected the application after recording a specific finding that there is no material on record to indicate that the information furnished to the applicant defendant by the U.P. Awas Evam Vikas Parishad under Right to Information Act is factually incorrect. In these circumstances, there is no justification for summoning the record at the revisional stage. 4. In these circumstances, there is no justification for summoning the record at the revisional stage. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner defendant has contended that there is likelihood of there being an application relating to the information furnished by the plaintiff respondents, to the U.P. Awas Evam Vikas Parishad regarding completion of the building and correct facts would come on record, only if the entire records of U.P. Awas Evam Vikas Parishad are summoned. 5. The contention does not have any force. 6. In the entire application, there is no assertion that information regarding completion of building in the year 1983 is available in the records of the U.P. Awas Evam Vikas Parishad. The application for summoning the records of U.P. Awas Evam Vikas Parishad was filed apparently for the purposes of making a roving enquiry and that too at the revisional stage, which can not be permitted. Further, it is noticeable from the information furnished by the U.P. Awas Evam Vikas Parishad in response to the questionnaire submitted before it that in its record there is no information available regarding the date of completion of the building. Under section 2(2) of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972, in the absence of a date available with the local body regarding the completion of the building, it is the date of first assessment, which has to be taken into consideration for ascertaining the date of construction of the building. A perusal of the judgment of the Judge, Small Causes, reveals that a specific finding relating to the date of construction of the building has been recorded on the basis of first assessment in the absence of any record before the Court regarding the date of completion of the building. A mere assertion by the petitioner that the landlord had taken an election connection or water connection in the year 1983, is wholly irrelevant for the purposes of determination of the date of construction of the building, in view of the deeming provision under the Act. 7. In these circumstances, even otherwise, I do not find any illegality in the order of the revisional Court to warrant interference in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution. 8. The petition lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed.