Bibekananda Sarmah v. Gobindram Bawri @ Gobindram Agarwalla
2015-08-10
INDIRA SHAH
body2015
DigiLaw.ai
ORDER : 1. This Revision is preferred against the Judgment and decree dated 23.12.2010 passed by learned Civil Judge, Golaghat, in title appeal No. 08/2009, whereby learned Civil Judge, in the appeal reversed the Judgment and decree dated 31.08.2009 passed by the Court of Munsiff No. 1, Golaghat, in Title Suit No. 12/2006. 2. The petitioner as the plaintiff instituted the suit for eviction of respondent No. 1 and prayed for compensation under the Provision of Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act, 1972. According to the petitioner, the suit house was let out to Sri. Sawarmal Agarwalla, the elder brother of the respondent No. 1 on the strength of a Deed of Agreement dated 01.04.1985 at a monthly rate of Rs. 350/- per month. The aforesaid tenancy continued till 31.12.1992 and on that date Sri Sawarmal Agarwalla handed over the possession of the suit premises to the petitioner by executing a writing dated 31.12.1992. Thereafter, respondent No. 1 approached the petitioner to take on monthly rent of the said suit premises for running a hardware shop. The monthly rent for the suit premises was fixed at Rs. 1,200/- per month. Right from 01.04.2000, the monthly rent for the suit premises was enhanced to Rs. 1,500/- per month. The petitioner/plaintiff pleaded in his plain that his father Lt. Nityananda Sarmah used to collect the rent and the petitioner was leaving with his father under the said room having a common kitchen. The petitioner intended to start his own hotel/restaurant business from the suit premises and as such the petitioner approached the respondent No. 1 in the month of July, 2000 and requested him to vacate the suit premises but later on refused to vacate the same, the petitioner served him Advocates notice dated 03.10.2010 asking the respondent to vacate the said suit premises. It was also pleaded by the petitioner that the respondent No. 1 was also a defaulter, having not paid monthly rent for the month of October, 2000 onwards. 3. The suit was initially disposed of by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Golaghat, vide Judgment and order dated 30.06.2005 and it was decreed in favour of the plaintiff/ petitioner.
It was also pleaded by the petitioner that the respondent No. 1 was also a defaulter, having not paid monthly rent for the month of October, 2000 onwards. 3. The suit was initially disposed of by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Golaghat, vide Judgment and order dated 30.06.2005 and it was decreed in favour of the plaintiff/ petitioner. An appeal was preferred by the respondent and while allowing the appeal the matter was remanded back to the learned Trial Judge, with directions to frame additional issue as to whether the defendant occupied the suit property as a tenant under the plaintiff or under the Nityananda Sarmah, the father of the plaintiff giving opportunity to amend the plain by impleading his father Nityananda Sarmah as one of the party to the suit. In the meantime, the father of the plaintiff died and on his death all his legal heirs were impleaded as respondent Nos. 2 to 8, legal heirs and successors of Lt. Nityananda Sarmah, by way of amendment of the plaint. 4. The defendant No. 1 contested the suit by filing written statement alleging that Lt. Nityananda Sarmah father of the plaintiff was his landlord who used to collect rent from the defendant. The Plaintiff is neither the owner nor the landlord of the suit property. It was averred by the defendant that he came to occupy the suit premises in the year 1970 as a tenant, rent of which was gradually enhanced to Rs. 1500/- only. It was Lt. Nityananda Sarmah who used to collect the rent from the defendant regularly till the month of September, 2000. When Lt. Nityananda Sarmah did not come to collect rent for the month of October, 2000, then the defendant approached him and tendered the rent to him and on his refusal to accept the tendered amount, he began to deposit the rent in the Court in the name of Lt. Nityananda Sarmah. He also denied the bona fide requirement of the Plaintiff of the suit premises. The proforma-defendant, i.e. legal heirs and successors of Lt. Nityananda Sarmah, by filing a joint written statement supported the case of the Plaintiff. According to the proforma-defendants, father of the plaintiff handed over the possession of the suit land and building to the plaintiff.
Nityananda Sarmah. He also denied the bona fide requirement of the Plaintiff of the suit premises. The proforma-defendant, i.e. legal heirs and successors of Lt. Nityananda Sarmah, by filing a joint written statement supported the case of the Plaintiff. According to the proforma-defendants, father of the plaintiff handed over the possession of the suit land and building to the plaintiff. On the basis of verbal gift, in the year 1985, the plaintiff mutated his name and obtained the municipal holdings in his favour. The plaintiff has been paying the land revenue and municipal taxes as well since then. Defendant No. 1 has not paid the rent of the suit premises since October, 2000. 5. As stated earlier, the suit was decreed in favour of the plaintiff but the Judgment and Decree was reversed by the Appellate Court. The appellate court's findings are that:- (i) The respondent was a tenant under Lt. Nityananda Sarmah, the father of the plaintiff/ petitioner. (ii) The respondent is a defaulter in payment of rent. (iii) The suit premises was not bonafidly required by the petitioner. 6. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the first appellate Court failed to appreciate the fact that the petitioner/plaintiff was landlord of the suit premises. The proforma-defendants who are legal heirs of Lt. Nityananda Sarmah supported the plaintiff by acknowledging the petitioner to be landlord of the respondent. The appellate Court held are that the Lt. Nityananda Sarmah, when he was alive was the landlord of the respondent and on his death proforma-defendant namely, Smt. Maichena Devi, who is the mother of the petitioner/plaintiff became the land lady of the respondent/Tenant, which is contrary to the evidence led by the plaintiff's side. Father of the petitioner Lt. Nityananda Sarmah died on 17.11.2005 during the pendency of the suit. It is argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that even if it is assumed that petitioner's father was the landlord, the petitioner also stepped into his father's shoe, as one of the legal heirs to the estate of Lt. Nityananda Sarmah and therefore, the suit filed by the petitioner as one of the co-owners of the was maintainable. Moreover, the respondent deposited the rent for the subsequent months in the name of proforma-defendant No. 2 and not in the name of all the legal representatives of Lt.
Nityananda Sarmah and therefore, the suit filed by the petitioner as one of the co-owners of the was maintainable. Moreover, the respondent deposited the rent for the subsequent months in the name of proforma-defendant No. 2 and not in the name of all the legal representatives of Lt. Nityananda Sarmah, thus, he ought to have been held defaulter in payment of rent. It is further argued that there was no request by proforma-defendant No. 2 to the respondent/Tenant, which was not even the assertion of any of the proforma defendant. 7. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 that the plaintiff/ petitioner failed to adduce evidence to show that he was Tenant under Plaintiff/petitioner. The respondent/defendant specifically denied the Deed of Agreement between plaintiff and Swarmal Agarwal. The respondent/defendant was a tenant under the father of the plaintiff Lt. Nityananda Sharma and it is a admitted fact that Lt. Nityananda Sharma used to collect the rent from the defendant as per Section 2 of the Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act, 1972. As per the relevant section of Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act, 1972, a person who collects the rent from the Tenant is a landlord. It was in the pleadings of the petitioner that his father used to collect rent in respect of the suit premises and therefore, his father was the landlord. It is further submitted that the plaintiff instituted the suit claiming himself as absolute owner of the property. It was not the case of the plaintiff that he is co-owner along with other defendants of the suit premises. It is further argued that the plaintiff is governed by Daya Bhaga School of Hindu Law they cannot be co-owner of property along with their father, during the life time of the father. Only after the death of the father they may inherit the property of the deceased father. 8. The plaintiff has claimed that the suit premises was a oral gift by his father in his favour. There cannot be oral gift under Hindu law although, oral gift is permissible in Mohemmadan law. By exhibiting some entries in the Municipal Board record as well as record of rights, the petitioner/plaintiff cannot claim his right title and interest in the suit property.
There cannot be oral gift under Hindu law although, oral gift is permissible in Mohemmadan law. By exhibiting some entries in the Municipal Board record as well as record of rights, the petitioner/plaintiff cannot claim his right title and interest in the suit property. It is further submitted that at no point of time, the plaintiff/petitioner informed the defendant that he has become owner of the suit premises during the period of Tenancy, the defendant never acknowledged/attorn plaintiff as his landlord. 9. The expression "land lord" has been defined in Section 2(c) of the Assam Urban Area Rent Control Act which reads as under:- Section 2(c) – "Landlord" means any person who is, for the time being receiving or entitled to receive rent in respect of any house whether on his own account, or on account, or on behalf, or for the benefit of any other person, or as a trustee, guardian or receiver for any other person; and includes in respect of his sub-tenant, a tenant who has sublet any house and includes every person not being a tenant who from time to time derives title under a landlord." 10. In Civil Appeal No. 3391/2015 of Dr. Ambica Prasad vs. Md. Alam and Another the Hon'ble Supreme Court is of the view that the definition of "land lord" is couched is a very wide language, according to which not only the owner but also any person receiving rent, whether on his own account or on behalf of or for the benefit of any other person, or as a trustee, guardian, or receiver for any other person, is also the land lord. In para 17 of the Judgment it has been observed:- "On the question of tenancy, both the trial Court and the High Court have not considered the provision of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act.
In para 17 of the Judgment it has been observed:- "On the question of tenancy, both the trial Court and the High Court have not considered the provision of Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act. 109 Rights of Lessor's transferee:- If the lessor transfers the property leased, or any part thereof, or any part of his interest therein, the transferee, in the absence of a contract to the contrary, shall possess all the right, and, if the lessee so elects, be subject to all the liabilities of the lessor as to the property or part transferred so long as he is the owner of it; but the lessor shall not, by reason only of such transfer cease to be subject to any of the liabilities imposed upon his by the lease, unless the lessee elects to treat the transferee as the person liable to him. Provided that the transferee is not entitled to arrears of rent due before the transfer, and that, if the lessee, not having reason to believe that such transfer has been made, pays rent to the lessor, the lessee shall not be liable to pay such rent over again to the transferee. The lessor, the transferee and the lessee may determine what proportion of the premium or rent reserved by the lease is payable in respect of the part so transferred, and in case they disagree, such determination may be made by any Court having jurisdiction to entertain a suit for the possession of the property leased." 11. From perusal of the aforesaid Section, it is manifest that after the transfer of Lessor's right in favour of the transferor, the later sets all rights and liabilities of the lessor in respect of subsisting tenancy. The Section does not insist that transfer will take effect only when the tenant attorns. It is well settled that a transferee of the landlord's rights steps into the shops of the landlord shall have all the rights and liabilities of the transferor landlord in respect of the subsisting tenancy. The section does not require that transfer of the right of the landlord can take effect only if the tenant atterns to him. Attornment by the tenant is not necessary to confer validity of the transfer or the landlord's rights. Similar observation was made in case of Suboth Chandra Deb vs. State of Assam and Others, (2004) 2 GLR 455.
The section does not require that transfer of the right of the landlord can take effect only if the tenant atterns to him. Attornment by the tenant is not necessary to confer validity of the transfer or the landlord's rights. Similar observation was made in case of Suboth Chandra Deb vs. State of Assam and Others, (2004) 2 GLR 455. 12. Although the defendant had denied that his brother Swarmal Agarwal was tenant in respect of the suit premises and the said S. Agarwalla vacated the suit premises. DW. 3 V. Mital in his cross examination admitted that S. Agarwalla took the suit premises in the year 1970 and the defendant Govind Ram was with him. The plaintiff on the other hand, exhibited the agreement of tenancy between the plaintiff and S. Agarwalla. PW. 2 who is witness in the said Ext-1 has also corroborated the evidence of the plaintiff. The Proforma-defendants who are legal heirs of Lt. Nityananda Sharma in their written statement clearly stated that the suit land and the holding in respect of the suit land belongs to the plaintiff. The suit property was given to the plaintiff by their father Lt. Nityananda Sharma. 13. Even if it is assumed that the father of the plaintiff was the landlord after his death the plaintiff and proforma-defendants steps into the suit of Lt. Nityananda Sharma. They became co-owner of the suit premises. Defendants case is that on refusal of by Lt. Nityananda Sharma to accept the rent, he deposited the rent in the name of wife of Lt. Nityananda Sharma whereas the plaintiff's brothers & sisters along with wife of Lt. Nityananda Sharma became the legal heirs after his death. 14. The Trial Court has observed that there is no evidence that the defendant took steps for service of notice in respect of rent deposited in the Court and therefore, it cannot be said that rent was deposited in the Court as per the provision laid down under Section 5 (4) of Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act, 1972. 15. In the cited case of Pal Singh vs. Sunder Singh and Others, (1989) 1 SCC 444 , it has been held that a co-owner is as much the owner of the entire property as any sole owner and the co-owners who were parties did not object to the claim of the first owner. 16.
15. In the cited case of Pal Singh vs. Sunder Singh and Others, (1989) 1 SCC 444 , it has been held that a co-owner is as much the owner of the entire property as any sole owner and the co-owners who were parties did not object to the claim of the first owner. 16. In the cited case of Mohinder Prasad Jain vs. Manohar Lal Jain, (2006) 2 SCC 724 , it was held as under:- "9 He had taken note of the fact that the landlord was one of the co-owners and non-joinder of other co-owners in the eviction petition is not fatal." "10 This question now stands concluded by a decision of this Court in India Umbrella Mfg. vs. Bhagabandei Agarwalla, wherein this Court opined as under:- Having heard the learned counsel for the parties we are satisfied that the appeals are liable to be dismissed. It is well settled that one of the co-owners can file a suit for eviction of a tenant in the property generally owned by the co-owners. This principle is based on the doctrine of agency. One co-owner filing a suit for eviction against the tenant does so on his own behalf in his own right and as an agent of the other co-owners. The consent of the other co-owners is assumed as taken unless it is shown that the other co-owners were not agreeable to eject the tenant and the suit was filed in spite of their disagreement. In the present case, the suit was filed by both the co-owners. One of the co-owners cannot withdraw his consent midway the suit so as to prejudice the other co-owner. The suit once filed, the rights of the parties stand crystallized on the date of the suit and the entitlement of the co-owners to seek ejectment must be adjudged by reference to the date of institution of the suit; the only exception being when by virtue of a subsequent event the entitlement of the body of co-owners to eject the tenant comes to an end by act of parties or by operation of law." "11 A suit filed by a co-owner, thus, is maintainable in law, It is not necessary for the co-owner to show before initiating the eviction proceedings before the Rent Controller that he had taken option or consent of the other co-owners.
However, in the event a co-owner objects thereto, the same may be a relevant fact. In the instant case, nothing has been brought on record to show that the co-owners of the respondent had objected to eviction proceedings initiated by the respondent herein. The submission of the learned counsel for the appellant to the effect that before initiating the proceedings, the respondent was required to show that he had experience in running the business in Ayurvedic medicines, has to be stated to be rejected. There is no law which provides for such a precondition. It may be so where a license is required for running a business, a statue may prescribe certain qualifications or preconditions without fulfilment whereof the landlord may not be able to start a business, but for running a wholesale business in Ayurvedic medicines, no qualification is prescribed. Experience in the business is not a precondition under any statute. Even no experience therefor may be necessary. If the respondent has proved his bona fide requirement to evict the appellant herein for his own purpose, this Court may not, unless an appropriate case is made out, disturb the finding of fact arrived at by the Appellate Authority and affirmed by the High Court." 17. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent that the plaintiff filed the suit as absolute owner of the property now he cannot claim himself as the Co-owner of the properties, therefore, the suit was not maintainable since he failed to be prove that he was absolute owner/landlord. 18. In the case of FGP Limited vs. Saleh Hooseini Doctor and Another, (2009) 10 SCC 223 , it has been held that:- "37 It has been urged by the learned counsel for the appellant that in the suit which has been filed by the respondents they have not asserted that they are filing it as co-owners but they have claimed that they are filing it as executors/executrix. So they cannot now meet the challenge of maintainability of the suit on the ground that it was filed by the respondents a co-owners. It is not possible to accept the aforesaid contention in the facts of this case.
So they cannot now meet the challenge of maintainability of the suit on the ground that it was filed by the respondents a co-owners. It is not possible to accept the aforesaid contention in the facts of this case. This Court is of the opinion that if the status of the respondents as co-owners of the property transpires clearly from the admitted facts of the case, they cannot be denuded of the said status at the instance of some objections by the tenants. Normally, a tenant's right to question the title of a landlord is very limited in view of the rule of law which is codified in section 116 of the Evidence Act." "38 Apart from that it has been held in some decisions of this Court that a co-owner of a property is an owner of the property, till the property is partitioned." "41 Since in the instant case, no partition has taken place, the plaintiff's status as co-owners cannot be disputed by the tenant and it is nobody's case that there is a clash of interest between the respondent and the co-owners." 19. It is urged by the learned counsel for the respondent No.1 that this Revision Application filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure in respect of judgment passed by the appellate authority is not maintainable. The court is only competent to exercise revisional power when there is allegation jurisdictional error and this Court shall not vary or reverse any decree or order against which an appeal lies either to the High Court or to the Court subordinate there to. S.115 may be quoted as under:- "Revision: (1) The High Court may call for the record of any case which has been decided by any Court subordinate to such High Court and in which no appeal lies thereto, and if such subordinate Courts appears:- (a) To have exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law. (b) To have failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested.
(b) To have failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested. (c) To have acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity, the High Court may make such order in the case as it things fit: Provided that the High Court shall not, under this section, vary or reverse any order made, or any order deciding an issue, in the course of a suit or other proceeding, except where the order, if it had been made in favour of the party applying for revision, would have finally disposed of the suit or other proceedings. (2) The High Court shall not, under this section, vary or reverse any decree or order against which an appeal lies either to the High Court or to any Court subordinate thereto. (3) A revision shall not operate as a stay of suit or other proceeding before the Court except where such suit or other proceeding is stayed by the High Court." 20. Section 8 of the Urban Areas Rent Control Act reads:- Statutory tenant:- A landlord or a tenant aggrieved by any decision or order of the Court under the provisions of Sections 4, 5 and 7 (2) of this Act shall have a right of appeal against the same as if such decision or order were a decree in a suit for ejectment of the tenant from the house and such appellate Court's decision shall be final. 21. Thus, a question arises as to whether in the face of Section 8 of the Act the proceeding initiated under the Act comes to complete end with the decision of the appellate Court or whether a revision can be entertained against the appellate order. 22.
21. Thus, a question arises as to whether in the face of Section 8 of the Act the proceeding initiated under the Act comes to complete end with the decision of the appellate Court or whether a revision can be entertained against the appellate order. 22. In the case of West Bengal State Weaver's co-op vs. Bibhabasu Choudhury and Others, (2004) 3 GLR 132, this Court relying on the Chagan Lal vs. Municipal Corporation, Indore, AIR 1977 SC 1555 and observed as under: "From a combined reading of decision of the Apex Court in Sough Asian Industries Pvt. Ltd. (Supra), Chagan Lal (Supra) and Aundal Ammal (Supra), what follows is that if the Act bars Any right of further appeal and declares the order of the appellate authority as final, no further right of appeal will be available with the parties and similarly, if the Act, expressly or by implication, prohibits exercise of revisional jurisdiction under Section 115, no power of revision can be exercised under Section 115, but on the exercise of revisional power, if the Act puts no restriction, then, the Court cannot refuse to entertain a revision under Section 115 merely on the ground that the appellate court's order is final and for the purpose of proper construction and correct interpretation of such an Act, the provisions of the Act, the language of the Act, the intention of the legislature, public policy, public interest and the whole scheme of the Act including the hierarchy of the Courts specified in the Act must kept in mind." In the case at hand, though the Act does not in so many words, provide for revision under Section 115, the fact remains that the word 'final' has to be interpreted by considering the whole scheme or the Act, the intention of the legislature and the public policy. The public policy demands shortening of the period of legislation and the intention of the legislature is to make the decision of the appellate court final. The scheme of the Act shows that there is hierarchy of Courts for determination of disputes raised by the parties.
The public policy demands shortening of the period of legislation and the intention of the legislature is to make the decision of the appellate court final. The scheme of the Act shows that there is hierarchy of Courts for determination of disputes raised by the parties. It needs to be born in mind that though Section 115 does not make this Section subject to any other provisions of the code or to any other law made by the legislature, the fact remains that the provisions of the code are applied with the help of Section 9 of the CPC, Section 9 makes it clear that "Courts" which obviously include a High Court, have a jurisdiction unless the same is expressly or impliedly barred. Though there is no express bar under the Act of 1972 on the powers of the High Court to revise any order passed under the Act including an appellate order passed under Section 8 of the Act, the fact remains that the word "final" if interpreted keeping in view the whole scheme of the Act, it will mean that the Act puts an implied bar on revisional powers of High Court and such an implies bar can be inferred from the scheme of the Act and also the recent decision of the Apex Court in Subodh Chandra Deb (Supra)." 23. In the case of Nawab Shaqufath Ali Khan & Others vs. Nawab Imdad Jah Bahadur Others, (2009) 5 SCC 162 , the Supreme Court has held:- "If the High Court had the jurisdiction to entertain either an appeal or a revision application or a writ petition under Act 226 and 227 of the constitution of India, in a given case it, subject to fulfilment of other conditions could even convert a revision application or a writ petition into an appeal or vice versa in exercise of its inherent power. Indisputably, however, for the said purpose, an appropriate case for exercise of such jurisdiction must be made out." The law is well settled that a case should be decided on merits and court should not foreclose remedies on technical grounds. 24. In the instant case even if the contention of defendant is admitted that father of plaintiff was his landlord, after the death of plaintiff's father, the plaintiff and proforma defendants became the co-owner of the suit premises.
24. In the instant case even if the contention of defendant is admitted that father of plaintiff was his landlord, after the death of plaintiff's father, the plaintiff and proforma defendants became the co-owner of the suit premises. The performa-defendants have not raised any objection, rather they have supported the status of the plaintiff as owner of the suit premises. Therefore, the defendant No.1, tenant cannot raise the title of the plaintiff. If the suit file by the plaintiff fails, on the ground that he was not the landlord and his father was landlord, the plaintiff can bring another suit after death of his father as co-owner of the suit property. Thus it will lead to unjust multiplicity of the suit. When the co-owners have acknowledged the title of the plaintiff as owner of the suit property, a tenant cannot be allowed to deny the plaintiff's status as owner of the property. 25. The trial Court as well as the appellant Court have held that the defendant No.1 was defaulter in payment of rent. However, the appellate Court has held that the defendant cannot be termed as defaulter against the plaintiff but he was defaulter in payment of rent to the deceased landlord Nityananda Sarmah and thereafter to his wife. 26. The plaintiff's plea of bona fide requirement was not accepted by the appellate court. Plaintiff in his evidence stated that he had opened a restaurant on the upper floor of the suit house but he had to close down it as the staircase leading to restaurant was too narrow and the prospective customers did not like to climb the staircase. Learned Appellate Court has observed that the Trade License exhibited by plaintiff was valid only for a period from 01.04.2001 to 31.03.2002. There was no extension of the trade license. 27. In the cited case of (2010) 12 SCC 740 it was held that the landlord is the best judge of his need, however, it should be real, genuine and need not be a pretext to evict the tenant only for increasing the rent. In the case of Mohd. Ayub and Another vs. Muksh Chand, (2012) 2 SCC 155 it was held in para 15 as under:- "15. It is well settled the landlord's requirement need not be a dire necessity.
In the case of Mohd. Ayub and Another vs. Muksh Chand, (2012) 2 SCC 155 it was held in para 15 as under:- "15. It is well settled the landlord's requirement need not be a dire necessity. The Court cannot direct the landlord to do a particular business or imagine that he could profitably do a particular business rather than the business he proposes to start. It was wrong on the part of the District Court to hold that the appellants' case that their sons want to start the general merchant business is a pretence because they are dealing in eggs and it is not uncommon for a Muslim family to do the business of non-vegetarian food. It advise him. Similarly, length of tenancy of the respondent in the circumstances of the case ought not to have weighed with the courts below." Similarly in case of Krishna Kumar Rastogi vs. Sumitra Devi, (2014) 9 SCC 309 similar observation was made. 28. Learned Appellate Court wrongly held that after the death of Nityananda, his widow i.e. mother of the plaintiff became the landlord, without considering the provisions of Section 109 of T.P. Act. The appellate Court even failed to consider that after the death of Nityananda Plaintiff and performa defendants all would succeed to the property. 29. Thus, the judgment passed by the appellate court is hereby set aside and the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court is upheld. Return the LCR along with a copy of this judgment.