Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 3999 (ALL)

Poornima Pandey v. S. S. Banerjee

2016-12-13

RITU RAJ AWASTHI

body2016
JUDGMENT Ritu Raj Awasthi,J. Heard Mr. Sudhir Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the revisionist and Mr. Vijay Prakash for the respondents. With the consent of parties' counsel, the revision is being decided at the admission stage. This revision has been filed under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Causes Courts Act, 1887 against the judgment and decree dated 30.9.2016 passed in S.C.C. Suit No. 121 of 2013; Aneeta Banerjee and others Vs. Poornima Pandey. As per the given facts the House/Flat No. 508, Kalyan Apartment, Sector 24, Indira Nagar, Lucknow was given on rent to the revisionist at a consideration of Rs.12,000/- per month w.e.f. 1.2.2008. The rent was not paid by the tenant due to which a notice dated 7.10.2013 was served on the tenant on 9.10.2013 and thereafter suit for arrears of rent and ejectment was filed before the competent court. The said suit has been decreed in favour of the plaintiff/respondents. Feeling aggrieved the present revision has been filed. Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that Mr.S.S.Banerjee husband of the landlady who is a retired I.P.S. officer was in 'Live-In-Relationship' and 'Extra Matrimonial Relationship' with the revisionist and the house in question was given as 'Sttreedhan' to the revisionist. She was sharing the house with Mr. S.S.Banerjee and there was no landlord-tenant relationship. Learned counsel for the revisionist vehemently submits that the learned trial court has failed to appreciate the uncontroverted facts that there was neither any written rent/lease agreement between the parties nor there was any evidence to show the landlord-tenant relationship. It is argued that the learned trial court could not have decided the issue no.1 which was framed as to whether the flat in question was given by respondent no. 1 to the revisionist as 'Streedhan'. The Court had no jurisdiction to decide the said issue. It is also submitted that there was no evidence on record to show that any monthly rent was paid by the revisionist to the respondent no.1 in view of tenancy. It is also contended that the original plaintiff Smt. Anita Banerjee who had died during pendency of the suit was deliberately not examined as examination-in-chief till her death in the year 2015 and after her death the other prosecution witnesses and defense witnesses were examined within a short period. It is also contended that the original plaintiff Smt. Anita Banerjee who had died during pendency of the suit was deliberately not examined as examination-in-chief till her death in the year 2015 and after her death the other prosecution witnesses and defense witnesses were examined within a short period. It is also submitted that the learned trial court has relied on the statement of P.W.-2/Prashant Yadav though he was an interested witness, whereas the testimonies of D.W.-1, D.W.-2 and D.W.-3 were not accepted by the trial court in the correct perspective. Mr. Vijay Prakash, learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, submits that the revisionist has no right to retain the house in question as admittedly she has not paid the rent for the period of occupancy and in spite of notice has not vacated the house in question. The learned trial court has rightly decreed the suit in favour of the respondent who are legal heirs of the original owner of the flat in question. It is submitted that the learned trial court has dealt with in detail the issue as to whether the claim of revisionist that the house in question was given to her as 'Streedhan' has any substance or not and the trial court has come to the conclusion that the claim of the revisionist is baseless. It is further submitted that the revisionist has illegally occupied the house of the respondent and she shall be directed to vacate the house in question immediately after paying the arrears of rent along with interest and damages. I have considered the submissions made by the parties' counsel and gone through the records. The suit for ejectment and arrears of rent was filed by Smt. Anita Banerjee, the original owner of the flat/house in question, during pendency of the suit Smt. Anita Banerjee had died and was substituted by her legal heirs/respondents who are her husband, son and daughter. The learned trial court while deciding the suit had framed certain issues, the English translation of which on reproduction reads as under: "1. Whether the plaintiff's flat no. 1 was given to the defendant as Streedhan? 2. Whether the relationship of landlord and tenant is in existence between the parties? If yes then for how much amount. 3. Whether the tenancy of defendant was abolished when the notice dated 7.10.2013 was sent on behalf of the plaintiff. 4. Whether the plaintiff's flat no. 1 was given to the defendant as Streedhan? 2. Whether the relationship of landlord and tenant is in existence between the parties? If yes then for how much amount. 3. Whether the tenancy of defendant was abolished when the notice dated 7.10.2013 was sent on behalf of the plaintiff. 4. Whether there was any lapse by the defendant in not paying the rent? 5. Relief." The learned trial court while deciding the said issues has come to the conclusion that the revisionist was a married lady. The husband of the revisionist is Mr. Santosh Kumar Pandey. She had taken the house in question on rent at a consideration of Rs. 12,000/- per month which was to be paid every month to the owner of the house. The trial court has recorded in its findings that the claim of the revisionist that she was in 'Live In Relationship' with the respondent no.1/1/Mr. S.S. Banerjee is totally baseless. She was already a married lady and as such there was no question of getting a gift of 'Streedhan' in the form of house in question from Mr. S.S.Banerjee. The learned trial court has also recorded in its findings that the conduct of the revisionist clearly shows that earlier also during her stay at Varanasi she had created a dispute with respect to ownership of a house which was taken by her on rent and had tried to grab the property. The revisionist has on the one hand admitted that the house in question is owned by Smt. Anita Banerjee, however on the other hand has claimed to have got the said house as a 'Streedhan' from Mr. S.S.Banerjee. The claim of the revisionist has no force. The learned trial court relying on the evidence on record and the statement of witnesses has come to the conclusion that the house in question was owned by Smt. Anita Banerjee and the maintenance charges of the said house were regularly paid to the builder/developer. The trial court relying on the evidence/statement of P.W.-2/Prashant Yadav has come to the conclusion that it was agreed in presence of Prashant Yadav that the house in question would be given to the revisionist on rent at a consideration of Rs. The trial court relying on the evidence/statement of P.W.-2/Prashant Yadav has come to the conclusion that it was agreed in presence of Prashant Yadav that the house in question would be given to the revisionist on rent at a consideration of Rs. 12,000/- per month and thereafter respondent had received the possession of the house in question as such there was landlord-tenant relationship and the revisionist being the tenant has failed to pay the rent and after receipt of notice by the landlord and termination of tenancy the revisionist has no right to occupy the house in question. The learned trial court in its findings has recorded that the revisionist has failed to pay the rent including the arrears. Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the revisionist and perusal of records, I am of the considered view that it is the admitted case that the revisionist has not paid the rent claimed by the respondents. In case the tenant-landlord relationship existed between the parties there was arrears of rent on the part of the revisionist. The revisionist had no right to occupy the house in question after termination of tenancy by the landlord. I am of the considered view that the trial court has rightly come to conclusion that there was tenant-landlord relationship between the revisionist and respondents. So far as the contention of learned counsel for the revisionist that the revisionist was sharing the house in question with Mr. S.S.Banerjee/respondent no.1/1 and she was in 'Live In Relationship' with him and therefore the house in question was given as 'Streedhan' is concerned, suffice is to observe that Mr.S.S.Banerjee has no right to give the house in question to the revisionist as he was not the owner of the house in question. The house was owned by Smt. Anita Banerjee and it was with her consent that the house in question was given to the revisionist on rent. It is the admitted case of the revisionist that she is a married lady and her husband's name is Santosh Kumar Pandey, as such the claim of the revisionist that the house in question was given to her as 'Streedhan', has no force and cannot be accepted. So far as the claim of the revisionist that she was in 'Live In Relationship' with Mr. So far as the claim of the revisionist that she was in 'Live In Relationship' with Mr. S.S.Banerjee is concerned, this Court is not required to delve on the said issue as it would not be proper to make any comment on the personal life of two individual adult persons. The revisionist has no right to occupy the house in question except as a tenant and she could occupy the house so long she was ready to pay the rent and with the consent of the owner of the house in question. Once the tenancy of the house in question was terminated she could not claim any right to occupy the house. I do not find any infirmity or illegality in the findings recorded by the learned trial court. The civil revision being devoid of merits is liable to dismissed at the admission stage. It is accordingly dismissed.