Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 1819 (ALL)

Mohan Verma v. Lav Pachori

2016-05-11

SUNITA AGARWAL

body2016
JUDGMENT Mrs. Sunita Agarwal, J. – Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 2. The eviction suit was filed by respondent no. 1 namely Sri Lav Pachori son of Late Rishi Kumar Pachori through his next friend namely his mother. 3. A categorical assertion made in the plaint was that the suit property was given on lease to one Ram Prasad Pandey by the original owner Late Rishi Kumar Pachori who had let out it on rent to defendant no. 1 namely Ram Bharosey Lal Verma on 10.4.1978, the lease had expired on 31.5.1981. In the meantime, a family settlement had arrived between the co-sharers of the suit property on 15.4.1980, resultant the suit property came in the share of the plaintiff and after expiry of the lease in favour of the Ram Prasad Pandey, he is the rightful owners in possession. 4. A categorical assertion has been made in the plaint that the possession of the suit property was obtained by the exclusive owner-landlord. The tenant had defaulted in payment of rent since 1.6.1981. A notice of demand and termination of tenancy dated 23.12.1986 was served upon the tenant by registered post. It was further stated that the provisions of Rent Control Act would not apply as the suit property is a new construction having been assessed for the first time on 1.6.1981. 5. This suit was contested by the defendants, who were substituted therein on the ground that the plaintiff was not the landlord of the suit property. The property was given on rent to the defendant's father by one Ram Prasad Pandey. The suit is incompetent as there was no landlord tenant relationship between the parties and hence the Small Causes Court cannot proceed. 6. An application under Section 23 of the Provincial Small Causes Court Act was filed by the defendants for return of plaint which was rejected by the SCC Court. The Revision No. 4 of 2013 (Ram Bharosey Lal v. Lav Pachori) challenging the rejection order was also dismissed on 13.11.2013. 7. On the dispute raised by the parties, issue no. 3 was framed on the question of landlord-tenant relationship. The Revision No. 4 of 2013 (Ram Bharosey Lal v. Lav Pachori) challenging the rejection order was also dismissed on 13.11.2013. 7. On the dispute raised by the parties, issue no. 3 was framed on the question of landlord-tenant relationship. On the basis of evidence on record, a categorical finding of fact has been recorded by the trial court that an open piece of land was leased to Sri Ram Prasad Pandey who had expired on 31.5.1981 who raised construction upon the same. The suit property came in possession of the original owner after expiry of the said lease. In the meantime, a family settlement has been arrived between the co-owners and the suit property came in the share and possession of the plaintiff namely Lav Pachori son of Rishi Kumar Pachori. 8. A partition suit namely Original Suit No. 44 of 1981 has been decreed on the basis of family settlement on 16.7.1981. The partition decree was brought on record as Paper Nos. 63C and 64C. It was, therefore, concluded by the trial court that the plaintiff was declared as owner of the suit property by the partition decree. 9. It was further considered that the defendant no. 1 Ram Bharosey Lal Verma father of the petitioners had admitted that he was tenant of the suit property. This admission was recorded on the basis of averments made by defendant no. 1 Ram Bharosey Lal Verma in an Original Suit No. 154 of 1984. This apart, the lessee namely Ram Prasad Pandey who had inducted defendant no. 1 Ram Bharosey Lal Verma in the suit property himself filed a written statement Paper No. 100C in the present suit to state that the owner of suit property is Lav Pachori. 10. It was opined by the trial court that these evidences are sufficient to conclude that the owner of the suit property is the plaintiff and he has right to maintain the suit for eviction. In any case, the status of the defendant is only of a tenant and the present suit for eviction of the tenant on the ground of default in payment of rent after determination of tenancy is perfectly maintainable. 11. It was further found by the Court below that the tenant had defaulted in payment of rent since 1.6.1981. In any case, the status of the defendant is only of a tenant and the present suit for eviction of the tenant on the ground of default in payment of rent after determination of tenancy is perfectly maintainable. 11. It was further found by the Court below that the tenant had defaulted in payment of rent since 1.6.1981. The suit property is exempted from the operation of the Act by virtue of Section 2(2) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972. The tenancy has been determined by a valid notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. The eviction suit was, accordingly, decreed. 12. Before the revisional court, it was pleaded by the revisionist that the suit could not be maintained in view of Section 15(2) and Clause (4) of Schedule II appended in the Provincial Small Causes Courts Act, 1987. This submission was repelled by the revisional court with the reasoning that the objection taken with regard to the maintainability of the suit has been rejected by the trial court and the said issue has been set at rest with the dismissal of the Revision No. 4 of 2013 on 13.11.2013. 13. On the issue of competence of the plaintiff to file suit, a finding has been recorded that the plaintiff being minor had rightly filed the suit through his next friend. 14. Challenging these findings, submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the courts below had erred in concluding on the issue of landlord-tenant relationship between the parties. In any case, the petitioner was not inducted as tenant in the suit property by the plaintiff or his father. An open piece of land was given on lease to Ram Prasad Pandey who had constructed the shop in question and inducted the father of the petitioner as tenant. After expiry of lease in the year 1981, no notice whatsoever was given to the petitioner by the plaintiff or the original owner namely Rishi Kumar Pachori who had leased out the suit property. The petitioners or their father never tendered rent to the plaintiff or Rishi Kumar Pachori, the original owner of the suit property. No landlord-tenant relationship came into existence at any point of time and as such the Court below had erred in proceeding with the suit. 15. The petitioners or their father never tendered rent to the plaintiff or Rishi Kumar Pachori, the original owner of the suit property. No landlord-tenant relationship came into existence at any point of time and as such the Court below had erred in proceeding with the suit. 15. This submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is misconceived inasmuch as it is admitted to the petitioner that he was inducted in the suit property as tenant. The suit property belongs to Rishi Kumar Pachori, father of the plaintiff. With the change of the possession after expiry of lease on 1.6.1981, it was incumbent upon the original tenant to tender rent to the current landlord. The notice giving this information to the petitioner's father in the year 1986 but admittedly rent was not tendered by him to any one. 16. In any case, the fact of induction of petitioner's father in the suit property by the then lessee namely Ram Prasad Pandey would become meaningless with the expiry of the lease, the status of the petitioner would not change. In any case, the petitioner has no right to challenge the title and ownership of the plaintiff. 17. The provisions of Rent Control Act do not apply in the present case. The tenancy has been determined by a valid notice served upon the then defendant no. 1 in the year 1986, there is no infirmity in this finding. 18. The grounds raised by learned counsel for the petitioner to challenge the finding recorded by the Court below are misconceived. 19. On all the above counts, this Court is not inclined to interfere. 20. Dismissed.