Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 3498 (ALL)

Surya Prakash Sharma v. Netra Pal Singh

2016-10-19

ANJANI KUMAR MISHRA

body2016
JUDGMENT Anjani Kumar Mishra, J. -- Heard learned counsel for the revisionists and Shri Kapil Tyagi for the caveator, opposite party 1 and 2. 2. The revision is directed against an order dated 04.07.2016 passed by the Additional District Judge/Special Judge S.C. S.T. Act, Gautam Budh Nagar in S.C.C. No. 4 of 2014, whereby application no. 46 Ga filed by the revisionist under Order 11 Rule 12 CPC for summoning the original lease agreement dated 01.02.1998 from the office of the Sub Registrar II Noida, has been rejected. 3. The S.C.C. suit was filed by the opposite parties for arrears of rent and eviction of the revisionists from shop nos. 25 and 26 situated in Sector 15, Noida. 4. The registered document sought to be summoned is stated to be a lease agreement regarding shop no. 27. 5. The submission of learned counsel for the revisionist is that this document was required to be summoned as it contained the signature of Sohan Lal, the father and predecessor in interest of the respondents. It was stated that this agreement executed in 1988 was for a period of 99 years with a stipulation that the rent in this period would not be enhanced. 6. The court below, by the impugned order has rejected the application filed by the revisionist on the ground that there was no dispute as regards shop no. 27. The revisionist is occupier of shop nos. 25 and 26 and the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties is admitted. It therefore opined that any lease agreement regarding shop no. 27 was wholly irrelevant that the purposes of the instant suit. 7. Even before this court, the contention of learned counsel for the revisionist is that the document was required to be produced in court as it contains signature of Sohan Lal, the erstwhile landlord. The revisionist does not possess any document bearing the signature of Sohan Lal. The certified copy of this document, which was obtained by the revisionist, does not contain the signature of Sohan Lal and, therefore, the original document was necessarily required to be summoned. 8. However in view of the findings returned in the impugned order and in view of the fact that counsel for the revisionist could not point out the relevancy of the signature of Sohan Lal on the document sought to be summoned, no ground for interference is made out. 8. However in view of the findings returned in the impugned order and in view of the fact that counsel for the revisionist could not point out the relevancy of the signature of Sohan Lal on the document sought to be summoned, no ground for interference is made out. 9. As already noticed herein above, the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties is admitted. The document may have been relevant in case this relationship was disputed but that is not the position in the case at hand. 10. Accordingly and since the revisionist has been unable to explain the relevancy of the document sought to be summoned, no case for interference is made out. 11. The revision is accordingly dismissed.