Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 551 (ALL)

B. P. Singh v. Vilayti Lal Lamba

2016-02-16

SUNITA AGARWAL

body2016
JUDGMENT Sunita Agarwal, J. – Heard learned counsels for both the parties. 2. The suit for eviction, it is recorded that there is no dispute regarding landlord- tenant relationship between the parties. 3. The contention of the defendant/revisionist is that he paid rent to the brother of the plaintiff. This plea was considered by the Court below and it was found that the revisionist had failed to prove the factum of payment of rent to Khairati Lal, the brother of the plaintiff and further to Sunny Lamba, his nephew. The person namely Sunny Lamba to whom the payment of rent was allegedly made till 15.8.2013, was not produced in evidence to substantiate the contention of the defendant/revisionist. 4. It is further found that the notice to quit and demand was received by the revisionist on 26.3.2014. He had appeared in the eviction suit on 23.4.2014, but he did not deposit the rent/dues in the Court prior to the first date of hearing. The deposits made by the defendant/revisionist on 16.7.2014 are beyond the first date of hearing and, therefore, the benefit of Section 20(4) U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 cannot be accorded to him. 5. As the defendant/revisionist was found in default, as he had failed to pay the rent even after service of notice of demand and quit, the suit for eviction has been decreed for arrears of rent @ Rs. 400/- per month from 12.11.2013 till 11.12.2013 and damages @Rs. 400/- per month from the date of institution of the suit till the date of vacation. 6. Learned counsel for the defendant/revisionist vehemently argued that the plaintiff himself admits in the plaint that he had inherited the suit property from his mother and Khairati Lal was his brother and, therefore, he could not dispute the factum of payment of rent to Khairati Lal, his brother. 7. This contention of learned counsel for the defendant/revisionist cannot be accepted in view of the categorical finding recorded by the Court below on issue nos. 2 and 3. The defendant/revisionist had failed to produce the best evidence namely Sunny Lamba, to whom rent was allegedly paid. He further urged that apart from the plaintiff, there are other owners of the suit property and hence the suit for eviction at the instance of plaintiff, one of the co-landlord, could not have been decreed. 8. 2 and 3. The defendant/revisionist had failed to produce the best evidence namely Sunny Lamba, to whom rent was allegedly paid. He further urged that apart from the plaintiff, there are other owners of the suit property and hence the suit for eviction at the instance of plaintiff, one of the co-landlord, could not have been decreed. 8. The finding on issue No. 1 is that in the cross-examination, the defendant/revisionist had admitted that the plaintiff was landlord of the suit property. In view thereof, the abovenoted contention of learned counsel for the revisionist to challenge the decree of eviction is misconceived. 9. It is further stated that there was no material before the Court below to conclude the existence of landlord-tenant relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant/revisionist except the admission of the defendant in the cross-examination. 10. Suffice it to say that no other material is required in view of own admission of the defendant regarding landlord-tenant relationship. 11. The revision lacks merits and hence dismissed. Revision dismissed.