Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 1373 (ALL)

Kamla Devi v. Basso Begum

2016-04-12

SUNITA AGARWAL

body2016
JUDGMENT Mrs. Sunita Agarwal, J. – By means of the present petition, the eviction decree passed by the JSCC Court is under challenge. 2. On the issue regarding the rate of rent of the disputed accommodation, Issue No. 1 was framed by the Court below. Rent receipts were filed by the plaintiff with thumb impression of the defendant/tenant namely Smt. Kamala Devi to prove the rate of rent of the disputed accommodation as Rs.50/- p.m. The tenant has failed to tender rent and the deposits made under Section 30 of the U.P. Act No.13 of 1972 were found in deficit. The Revisional Court also affirmed the order of eviction. 3. Challenging the findings recorded by the Court below, the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that an Expert Report has been relied upon by the Court below to arrive at the conclusion that the plaintiff had succeeded in establishing the rate of rent as Rs. 50/- of the disputed accommodation. Submission is that the Court below has erred in relying upon the Expert's Report in view of the specific objection raised by the petitioner regarding his qualification. 4. Dealing with this submission of learned counsel for the petitioner after perusal of the record, this Court finds that the Expert namely Ravindra Tripathi appeared in the Witness Box and his testimony regarding his competence for comparing the thumb impression was found reliable. Moreover, the expert's report was taken as a guidance and on the basis of evidence available on record including the Municipal Assessment Record, it was found by the Court below that the rate of rent of the disputed accommodation was never stagnant. It was initially Rs. 14/- per month but later on increased to Rs.22/- p.m. in the year 1973-78. The municipal assessment extract of the year 1973-78 Paper No. 62 Ga/7 was examined by the Court below. 5. It is found that no other evidence was led by the respondent to dispute the expert's report. 6. In view of the above reasoning of the Court below it cannot be said that it has arrived at the finding on Issue No.1 solely on the basis of expert's report. 7. In view thereof, the findings recorded by the Court below cannot be said to suffer from any error. 8. 6. In view of the above reasoning of the Court below it cannot be said that it has arrived at the finding on Issue No.1 solely on the basis of expert's report. 7. In view thereof, the findings recorded by the Court below cannot be said to suffer from any error. 8. Moreover, it is well settled that in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, this Court is not supposed to correct an error of law or the fact. The supervisory jurisdiction has to be sparingly used in order to guide the Court below and only in cases where material injustice has been caused to a party. 9. No such situation arises in the present case and hence no interference is required. 10. No other point has been pressed. 11. Lastly, Sri Ram Janam Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner requested that some reasonable time may be provided to the tenant to shift his belongings elsewhere. To this submission, no objection was taken by Sri Kirti Kumar Nirkhi, learned counsel for the respondent. It is, therefore, directed that: - "(1) The petitioner shall file an undertaking within a period of six weeks before the Court below that he will vacate the premises in question on or before 17.10.2016. (2) The entire decretals amount with up-to-date interest shall be deposited within a period of one month. (3) In case of any default, the protection granted herein above shall automatically stand vacated." 12. With the above observations and directions, this petition is dismissed. Petition dismissed.