Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 24 (ALL)

Shayama Devi v. Bharat Sewasram Sangh

2017-01-03

MANOJ MISRA

body2017
JUDGMENT Manoj Misra, J. -- Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. 2. The present petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, has been filed against order dated 16.09.2015 passed in SCC Suit No. 03 of 2009 and the order dated 14.09.2016 passed in SCC Revision No. 13 of 2015. 3. A perusal of the record would go to show that SCC Suit No. 03 of 2009 was instituted by the plaintiff-respondent for arrears of rent and eviction against the defendant-petitioner by claiming that the plaintiff was a Society registered for Public Charitable Purposes and it had purchased the accommodation in dispute, vide sale-deed dated 15.04.2006, of which the defendant-petitioner was a tenant at the rate of Rs. 250/- per month. The suit was instituted by alleging that the plaintiff had been defaulter in payment of rent with effect from 15.04.2006 and that a composite notice terminating tenancy and demanding arrears of rent was duly served upon the defendant but, in spite of expiry of the period of notice, neither the arrears of rent was paid nor the premises vacated. 4. The defendant contested the suit by denying the landlord-tenant relationship. It was claimed by the defendant that Ravindra Nath Sanyal was the original owner/landlord who had died and after his death, Rekha Sanyal was its owner and that the defendant had paid rent to Rekha Sanyal till July, 2006 @ Rs.100 p.m. and when she refused to accept rent, the same was deposited under Section 30 of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 in Misc. Case No. 64 of 2006. It was also alleged that after the death of Rekha Sanyal, owner of the property was Geeta Mukut Mani. 5. On the pleadings of the parties, the trial court framed several points for determination. The relevant were: - (a) Whether the plaintiff was an institution for public and charitable purposes and as such the provisions of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 were not attracted?; (b) Whether there was landlord-tenant relationship between the parties?; (c) Whether the defendant had been a defaulter in payment of rent since 15.04.2006?; and (d) Whether the defendant was tenant at the rate of Rs. 250/- per month or Rs. 100/- per month? 6. 250/- per month or Rs. 100/- per month? 6. The plaintiff proved its case by producing documents as well as by leading oral evidence by way of affidavit whereas the defendant-petitioner neither filed any document in support of its defence nor led any oral evidence either by way of affidavit or by appearing in the witness-box. The trial court returned a finding that the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 was not applicable to the accommodation in dispute inasmuch as the plaintiff institution was an institution for public and charitable purpose and it also found that there was landlord-tenant relationship between the parties because the plaintiff had purchased the property from its owner. The court also returned a finding that the agreed rent between the parties was Rs. 250/- per month and that the defendant had been a defaulter since 15.04.2006. Accordingly, the suit was decreed by the trial court against which a revision under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Causes Courts Act was filed which was dismissed by order dated 14.09.2016 passed by the District Judge, Gorakhpur. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to demonstrate that the findings returned by the court below are perverse or that courts below committed any legal or jurisdictional error in recording such findings and decreeing the suit of the plaintiff. The only argument which has been sought to be advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the plaintiff could not have derived title on the basis of the sale-deed executed by Sarojit Sanyal because he was not the owner and the landlord of the premises in question. 8. I have carefully perused the order passed by the revisional court, which clearly discloses that there was no dispute between the parties that the original owner/landlord of the premises was Ravindra Nath Sanyal. The plaintiff had led evidence to show that Ravindra Nath Sanyal had executed a registered Will in favour of Sarojit Sanyal, who had executed registered sale-deed in favour of the plaintiff on 15.04.2006. The plaintiff had proved its case by producing documents and by leading evidence whereas the defendant had failed to lead any evidence in rebuttal of the plaintiff's case. 9. In view of the above, I do not find any good reason to interfere with the findings returned by the court below. The plaintiff had proved its case by producing documents and by leading evidence whereas the defendant had failed to lead any evidence in rebuttal of the plaintiff's case. 9. In view of the above, I do not find any good reason to interfere with the findings returned by the court below. More so, there appears no legal or jurisdictional error committed by the court below which may warrant exercise of powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The petition is, therefore, dismissed.