Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 4060 (ALL)

Mohsin Raza v. Hoor Jahan Alias Rahmat Begum

2015-12-18

MAHENDRA DAYAL

body2015
JUDGMENT Mahendra Dayal,J. The tenant-revisionist has filed this revision under section 25 of the Provincial Small Causes Courts Act assailing the judgment and decree dated 08.01.2015 passed by the Additional District Judge, Court No.3, Lucknow in SCC Suit No.46 of 2013, whereby the suit has been decreed and the tenant-revisionist has been directed to vacate the premises in question within two months and also pay the arrears of rent @ Rs.500/- per month with effect from 01.04.2010 to 31.03.2012 within the aforesaid period of two months. The tenant-revisionist has further been directed to pay damages @ Rs.500/- per month with effect from 01.04.2012 till the date of delivery of possession. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 2. The tenant-revisionist has challenged the impugned judgment and decree mainly on the ground that there exists no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties, but the learned court below has totally ignored this important aspect of the matter. The learned court below had no jurisdiction to pass a decree for eviction or recovery of arrears of rent in respect of a person who is not a tenant. The learned court below has also erred in holding that notice under section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act was served upon the tenant-revisionist. It was an admitted fact that an agreement to sell was executed between the parties and the opposite party also accepted a sum of Rs.10,000/- as advanced from the tenant-revisionist. It has also been ignored by the learned court below that the tenant-revisionist has been residing in the premises in question since last about 35 years and the house in question was constructed by the tenant-revisionist himself. Thus, the learned court below has not correctly appreciated the evidence on record and as such the decree for recovery of arrears of rent and eviction passed by the court below against the tenant-revisionist is a nullity and is liable to be set aside. 3. Learned counsel for the opposite party-landlord has on the other hand submitted that the learned court below has recorded a definite finding on the basis of material on record that there exists relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and this is a finding of fact based on evidence which can not be said to be perverse. 3. Learned counsel for the opposite party-landlord has on the other hand submitted that the learned court below has recorded a definite finding on the basis of material on record that there exists relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and this is a finding of fact based on evidence which can not be said to be perverse. With regard to the alleged agreement to sell executed between the parties, the submission on behalf of the opposite party-landlord is that although the opposite party-landlord had received Rs.10,000/- as advanced and an agreement was also executed between the parties but since the final deal could not materialize, therefore, the earnest money was returned to the tenant-revisionist. It has also been submitted that mere agreement to sell does not confer any right or title to the tenant-revisionist and his status would remain unchanged inspite of an agreement to sell. 4. So far as the service of notice is concerned, the learned court below has framed specific issue on this point and has recorded a finding that the notice demanding arrears of rent with effect from 01.04.2010 to 31.03.2012 was issued by the opposite party-landlord and the same was served upon the tenant-revisionist. The tenant-revisionist has admitted this fact that he did not pay any rent from 01.04.2010. This admission by the tenant-revisionist alone was sufficient to record a finding that the tenant-revisionist was a defaulter. Since he did not pay the arrears of rent inspite of receiving notice and also did not deposit the same before the court below when the suit was filed, therefore, the learned trial court has rightly recorded a finding that the tenant-revisionist was a defaulter and was liable to be evicted. 5. The learned counsel has referred to the statement of the tenant-revisionist, a copy of which has been annexed with this revision in which he admitted that the opposite party-landlord had issued a notice to him demanding arrears of rent and asking him to vacate the premises in question. However, subsequently, he denied having received any notice, but the learned court below concluded that the subsequent denial by the tenant-revisionist was not reliable. The tenant-revisionist has further admitted in his cross-examination that there is no electricity connection in the tenant premises and he did not pay any rent with effect from April 2010. 6. However, subsequently, he denied having received any notice, but the learned court below concluded that the subsequent denial by the tenant-revisionist was not reliable. The tenant-revisionist has further admitted in his cross-examination that there is no electricity connection in the tenant premises and he did not pay any rent with effect from April 2010. 6. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of the impugned judgment as well as the evidence on record, it is well established that the tenant-revisionist was a tenant of the opposite party-landlord in respect of the disputed premises and the rate of rent was Rs.500/- per month. It is also established that in the year 2006, an agreement was arrived at between the parties and in pursuance thereof the opposite party-landlord received Rs.10,000/- as advance, but the said agreement is an unregistered document and moreover mere execution of agreement to sell does not confer any title or right. In these circumstances, the finding of fact recorded by the learned court below with regard to the relationship and default, is in accordance with the material on record. The learned counsel for the revisionist has failed to point out as to how these findings are perverse. 7. In view of the above, the judgment and decree passed by the learned court below does not call for any interference and as such the revision is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed. 8. The revision is hereby dismissed.