Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1740 (ALL)

Ganga Prasad Raikwar @ Ganga Ram v. A. D. J.

2015-07-03

MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA

body2015
JUDGMENT Manoj Kumar Gupta, J. The petitioner/tenant has invoked the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution, in challenging the judgement and decree dated 28.2.2013 passed by the Judge Small Causes, Chitrakoot decreeing the suit for arrears of rent and ejectment filed by the respondent no.3/landlord as well as the judgement dated 21.11.2014, whereby the revision challenging the judgement of the Judge Small Causes, has also been dismissed. 2. The respondent/landlord had instituted SCC suit no. 2 of 2011 against the petitioner for recovery of arrears of rent and for ejectment. The categorical case in the suit was that the rent of the demised premises was Rs.500/- per month and the petitioner is in default in payment of rent since July 2007. The arrears of rent were not paid despite due service of notice dated 3.1.2011. The petitioner contested the suit by filing written statement, disputing the rate of rent. His case was that the rent initially was Rs.10/- per month which lateron was enhanced to Rs.15/- and thereafter to Rs.20/- per month. It was stated that the rent from 1.7.2007 until 1.1.2011 i.e., for period of 53 months amounting to Rs.860/- was sent to the landlord by money order on 2.2.2011 and as such there is no default in the payment of rent. 3. The Judge Small Causes, after considering the evidence on record held that the rate of rent was Rs.500/- per month and the petitioner had defaulted in payment of rent for a period of more than four months. It is further held that the same was not paid to the landlord despite notice of demand nor the entire amount was deposited in the suit at the first date of hearing. With these findings, the suit filed by the plaintiff was decreed for recovery of arrears of rent and for ejectment by judgement and decree dated 28.2.2013; the revisional court has affirmed the decree passed by the Judge Small Causes. 4. The sole submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner is that the finding regarding rate of rent is erroneous in law. He has placed reliance on the House Tax assessment in which, according to him, the rate initially was Rs.10/- per month, which was enhanced to Rs.15/- and then to Rs.20/- per month. 5. 4. The sole submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner is that the finding regarding rate of rent is erroneous in law. He has placed reliance on the House Tax assessment in which, according to him, the rate initially was Rs.10/- per month, which was enhanced to Rs.15/- and then to Rs.20/- per month. 5. A perusal of the judgements of the courts below would show that the courts below have placed reliance on the oral testimony of the witnesses and have refused to rely on the house tax assessment in so far as entries regarding rate of rent is concerned, on a finding that the petitioner, even according to his own case, was in possession of the best evidence regarding rate of rent i.e. a diary in which, entries were supposedly made relating to payment of rent every month. It has been held that despite being in possession of best evidence, the petitioner did not file the original diary before the courts and thus adverse inference was drawn against him. The photostat copy of the diary was held to be inadmissible in evidence. 6. After considering the findings recorded by the courts below, I do not find any such illegality or perversity which may warrant interference in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution. 7. In Waryam Singh v. Amarnath and another, AIR 1954 SC 214 a constitution bench of the Supreme Court has held that the supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution is to be exercised sparingly and only in order to keep the subordinate courts within the bounds of their authority and it is not meant to correct errors of fact or even of law. Same view was taken in a subsequent constitution bench judgement in State of Gujarat v. Vakhatsinghji Vajesinghji Vaghela, AIR 1968 SC 1481 . 8. In view of the above, I do not find any ground to interfere with the concurrent findings of facts recorded by the courts below. 9. In the end, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that some time may be granted to the petitioner to vacate the premises. 8. In view of the above, I do not find any ground to interfere with the concurrent findings of facts recorded by the courts below. 9. In the end, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that some time may be granted to the petitioner to vacate the premises. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, it is hereby provided that in case petitioner gives an undertaking before the executing court within three weeks from today alongwith certified copy of this order that he will handover peaceful possession of the demised premise to the respondent/landlord by 31 December 2015 and also deposits the entire arrears of rent as decreed by the courts below, within the same period, alongwith future damages for use and occupation upto 31 December 2015, at the same rate i.e., Rs.500/-, then his dispossession shall remain stayed till 31 December 2015. In case petitioner fails to comply with any of the conditions stipulated above, the protection granted by this order shall stand vacated and it shall be open to the landlord to get the decree executed, in accordance with law.