Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 4102 (ALL)

Rajesh Kumar v. Sonam Rungta

2016-12-19

ANJANI KUMAR MISHRA

body2016
JUDGMENT Anjani Kumar Mishra, J. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist. 2. This SCC revision is directed against the judgment and decree passed by the Judge, Small Causes Court / Additional District Judge, Court No.15 Ghaziabad in SCC Suit No.39 of 2009 ( Smt. Sonam Rungta Vs. Sri Rajesh Kumar). 3. By this order, the suit for the revisionists' eviction, arrears of rent and mesne profit has been decreed. 4. The contention of learned counsel for the revisionist is that the SCC Suit involved a serious dispute of title. The suit had been filed regarding a flat No.S-1, Second Floor, situated in Sector-12, THA Residential Colony, Ramprastha, Ghaziabad. The case of the revisionist defendant is that he is residing in Flat No.D-262-A,S-1, Ramprastha Colony, Ghaziabad and that the Court below has committed manifest illegality in treating both the properties to be the same. 5. Since a serious dispute of title was involved, the matter should have been referred to the Court of competent jurisdiction, under Section 23 of the Provincial Small Causes Court Act. The suit was filed regarding a residential flat constructed over plot No.D-262-A, which belonged to one M.M. Sharma and the plaintiff and defendant both have nothing to do with Plot No.D-262. 6. It appears that even before the Court below, identical submissions were made. This aspect has been considered in great detailed by the the Court below and the case of the revisionist-defendant has been discarded. 7. It has been recorded that the revisionist alleged that Plot no.262 is a vacant plot. 8. The Court has observed that a detailed chart was submitted by the plaintiff relating to the various transfers made regarding the property in question. On that basis, it has been recorded that the flat in question was constructed by M/s Mahamaya General Finance Company and was transferred to Yogesh Dutt, by the company. The purchaser, Yogesh Dutt in turn through a registered power of attorney, transferred it to Smt. Nirmal Kapoor. Smt. Nirmal Kapoor bequeathed the property to her son, Lalit Kapoor, who in turn sold it to his wife, Smt. Rani Kapoor. The plaintiff-opposite party, purchased it from Smt. Rani Kapoor by means of a registered sale deed after paying adequate consideration. The various deeds of the transfer enumerated above were available on record. Smt. Nirmal Kapoor bequeathed the property to her son, Lalit Kapoor, who in turn sold it to his wife, Smt. Rani Kapoor. The plaintiff-opposite party, purchased it from Smt. Rani Kapoor by means of a registered sale deed after paying adequate consideration. The various deeds of the transfer enumerated above were available on record. There was further evidence available on record to show that the electricity connection of this flat was transferred in the name of the plaintiff. 9. Although, the revisionist alleged that he was not in occupation of this flat, however, when the electricity connection of the flat was dis-connected, on account of non payment of the electricity bills, an application was made by the revisionist for restoration of the connection. This, in the opinion of the Court below, clearly established that the revisionist was residing in flat in question. He would not have been aggrieved, if he was not in occupation of this flat and if as alleged by him, the electricity connection of another flat had been dis-connected. 10. The Court has also observed that it has not been established on record as to how the property in question belonged to M.M. Sharma, as alleged by the revisionist. 11. A categorical finding has been returned that the rent agreement between the revisionist and his initial landlord, Smt. Nirmal Kapoor, due to a typing error mentioned D-262 in place of D-262-A. 12. The documentary evidence filed by the revisionist has been discarded on the ground that the Gas connection papers and the Bank Accounts mentioned his address merely on the basis of information provided by him. A finding was therefore, returned that the revisionist has not been able to establish the existence of flat No.D-262-A or its ownership. 13. The most crucial finding recorded by the Court below is that the defendant-revisionist admitted his signatures on the rent agreement paper No.12Ga/1 and 12Ga/3. On the basis of the above, the revisionist was held to be the tenant of the accommodation in question. 14. As the provisions of the Rent Control Act were not attracted to the property in question, whose rent was Rs.3300/- per month, a valid notice terminating the tenancy was served upon the revisionist but despite the same, the arrears of rent were not deposited nor the property in question, vacated, the trial Court decreed the suit. 15. 14. As the provisions of the Rent Control Act were not attracted to the property in question, whose rent was Rs.3300/- per month, a valid notice terminating the tenancy was served upon the revisionist but despite the same, the arrears of rent were not deposited nor the property in question, vacated, the trial Court decreed the suit. 15. From what has been noticed above, this Court finds that no bonafide dispute of title existed between the parties. Reliance upon the various judgments cited on behalf of the revisionist, which hold that a question of title cannot be decided by the Small Causes Court, are of no consequence. It is settled law that a dispute of title raised before the Small Causes Court should be a bonafide dispute and only the Small Causes Court, ceases to have jurisdiction to decide the matter. It is equally well settled that it is open for the Small Causes Court to incidentally consider any dispute of title that may be raised before it. This is precisely what has been done in the case at hand and a finding returned that so called dispute of title being raised by the revisionist was neither bonafide nor was any bonafide dispute even established by him. In fact, the findings are that the revisionist was trying to garner undue advantage of a typographical error as regards, the number of flat in the rent agreement entered into between him and his erstwhile landlady, Smt. Nirmal Kapoor, and on its basis attempting to confuse the Court. 16. In view of the above and since the findings returned are neither perverse or vitiated in any manner, the revision is found to be devoid of merits. 17. It is accordingly, dismissed.