Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 3753 (ALL)

Ratneshwar Singh v. Priya Maurya

2015-12-01

VIVEK KUMAR BIRLA

body2015
JUDGMENT Vivek Kumar Birla, J. – Re: Civil Misc. Delay Condonation Application Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and Sri Devi Prasad Tripathi, learned counsel for the plaintiff-respondent and perused the affidavit filed in support of this application. 2. No counter affidavit has been filed. Cause shown for the delay in filing the revision is sufficient. This application is allowed and the delay in filing the revision is condoned. Re: S.C.C. Revision 3. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and Sri Devi Prasad Tripathi, learned counsel for the plaintiff-respondent and have perused the record. 4. The revisionist has come up challenging the order dated 28.9.2015 passed on the application paper no. 24-C of the plaintiff-respondent that the defence of the revisionist be struck down as he has not deposited any rent and is not depositing the current rent regarding the premises in dispute. 5. The aforesaid application was allowed by the Court below and the defence of the revisionist was struck down. The revisionist has taken objection that he is not occupying the premises as tenant but in fact he has purchased the property from the previous owner Ram Bharose and for this purpose he had filed a suit for injunction against the earlier landlord. This objection was replied by the plaintiff-respondent that from the previous landlord Ram Bharose property was purchased by her vide registered sale deed dated 27.2.2013 and as such, she is landlady of the property in question. 6. The Court below has recorded a finding that contrary to the aforesaid registered sale deed, the revisionist has not shown any document whatsoever to demonstrate that he is owner of the property in dispute. The Court below has also recorded that undisputedly the revisionist has not deposited any rent with regard to the property in dispute and as such, the defence of the revisionist is struck down. 7. In such view of the matter, I do not find any legal infirmity in the order impugned herein dated 28.9.2015 passed on the application paper no. 24-C of the plaintiff-respondent striking down the defence of the revisionist as he was not able to show that he has purchased the property in dispute and he is owner of the same. The non-deposit of rent by the revisionist is also not in dispute. 24-C of the plaintiff-respondent striking down the defence of the revisionist as he was not able to show that he has purchased the property in dispute and he is owner of the same. The non-deposit of rent by the revisionist is also not in dispute. The only submission is that he is landlord of the premises in question and he is not liable to pay any rent. In view of the fact that by the registered sale deed dated 27.2.2013, the property in question was purchased by the plaintiff-respondent and that she is landlady to which nothing contrary on record was placed by the revisionist, I am not inclined to interfere with the order impugned herein. 8. The present revision is accordingly dismissed. Revision dismissed.