Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 445 (ALL)

Nand Kishor Rana v. Anupam Sharma

2015-03-10

RAJESH DAYAL KHARE

body2015
JUDGMENT Rajesh Dayal Khare,J. List of fresh cases has been revised. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Arjun Singh Solanki and Sri Suresh Chandra Varma learned counsel for the respondents. 3. Present writ petition has been filed seeking a writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 30.3.2013 passed by Civil Judge (Senior Division)/Judge Small Cause, Court, Kashiram Nagar in SCc Case No. 17 of 2001 and the order dated 22.1.2015 passed by District Judge, Kasganj in SCC Revision No. 02 of 2013. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner is tenant of the shop in question situated at Gorahapul Pargana BIlram Tehsil and district Kasganj at the monthly rent of Rs. 200/- per month in which he is running his clinic and is doing medical practice since 1985. It is further contended that the respondents-landlords initiated proceedings against the petitioner for his eviction on the ground of default of payment of rent claiming themselves to be the landlords of the premises in question on the basis of will executed by their grandfather. It is next contended that the shop in question was let out to the petitioner by the father of the respondents, therefore, the respondents were not the landlord of the premises in question. It is next contended that an abortive attempt was made by the respondents for evicting the petitioner from the shop in question, thus the petitioner was constrained to file a suit for permanent injunction which was numbered as Suit No. 225 of 2001. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contends that the trial court vide order dated 30.3.2013 decreed the suit against the petitioner for his eviction against which the petitioner filed a revision under Section 25 of the Small Causes Courts Act before the District Judge, Kasganj which revision has also been dismissed vide order dated 22.1.2015, which orders are impugned in the present writ petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that it was for the respondents-landlords to prove that they are the landlords of the premises in question and therefore had the right to maintain the suit, which burden has been incorrectly shifted upon the petitioner-tenant. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that it was for the respondents-landlords to prove that they are the landlords of the premises in question and therefore had the right to maintain the suit, which burden has been incorrectly shifted upon the petitioner-tenant. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent contends that after exchange of pleadings and after adducing of evidence by the parties, orders impugned have been passed, which suffer from no infirmity in law, which may call for any interference by this Court for quashing the same. 6. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the orders impugned and the material on record, this Court is of the opinion that learned counsel for the petitioner could not make out any good ground which may warrant interference by this Court in exercise of power conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for quashing the orders impugned. 7. Accordingly, the prayer for quashing the orders impugned is hereby refused. 8. Present petition lacks merit and is dismissed. No order as to costs. 9. After the order was passed, learned counsel for the petitioner prays that some reasonable time may be given to the petitioners for vacating the premises in question. 10. Accordingly, one year from today is granted to the petitioner for vacating the premises in question subject to payment of monthly rent by 07th of each calendar month till handing over the actual possession to the respondent-landlord and also the petitioner shall give an undertaking on oath before the court below within fifteen days from today with regard to vacation of the premises in question within one year. 11. The petitioner shall also deposit the arrears of rent due before the Court below within two months from today and the amount which has already been deposited by the petitioner shall also be adjusted towards rent. 12. The amount so deposited by the petitioner may be permitted to be withdrawn by the respondents-landlords, after due verification by the courts below. 13. In case of default of conditions mentioned above, this protection granted to the petitioner shall automatically stand vacated.