Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 240 (ALL)

Rakesh Singh v. Deep Raj Shukla

2017-01-17

ATTAU RAHMAN MASOODI

body2017
JUDGMENT Attau Rahman Masoodi, J. -- Heard learned counsel for the revisionists. 2. Since both the aforementioned revisions involving a similar question were heard together, therefore, the same are decided by a common order. 3. These two revisions filed under Section 25 of Provincial Small Causes Court Act, 1887 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) against separate orders of the same date i.e. 19.7.2016 rejecting the application moved by the revisionists under Section-23 of the Act in a SCC Suit question the correctness of the impugned orders passed by the court below. 4. From the averments made in the application filed under Section 123 of the Act, it is gathered that the SCC Suit was filed by the respondent after purchase of the disputed property from its owner Sri Rajendra Kumar Misra who is the husband of one Smt. Sneh Lata Misra. It was further averred in the application that Sri Rajendra Kumar Misra from whom the disputed property was purchased by the respondent had not rented out the property to the revisionists and in absence of any contract of tenancy with the respondent or previous owner Rajendra Prasad Misra, the suit ought not to proceed for the reason that the rent due has been paid to Smt. Sneh Lata Misra, who being in possession of the disputed property had let out the same to them. 5. It is further averred in the application that a title dispute is going on between Rajendra Kumar Misra and recognised landlord, namely, Smt. Sneh Lata Misra, therefore, once the tenancy of the revisionist is disputed, the plaint deserved to be returned to the plaintiff for being presented before the appropriate forum. The material placed on record shows that a sale transaction has taken place between the erstwhile owner of the property with the respondent under a registered sale deed and this fact has come to be known to the revisionists. The material placed on record shows that a sale transaction has taken place between the erstwhile owner of the property with the respondent under a registered sale deed and this fact has come to be known to the revisionists. The subsisting tenancy rights between the revisionists and their recognised landlady Smt. Sneh Lata Misra in respect of the property in dispute were vehemently disputed by the respondent on the strength of stipulations in the sale deed itself wherein the transferor has not recognised any such right being conferred upon Smt. Sneh Lata Misra either to create any tenancy or receive rent, as such, on termination of tenancy by notice, the suit proceedings were instituted which legally are bound to proceed according to the respondent. 6. The revisionists, in the circumstances of the case, cannot claim any better rights than that of a lessee and for this purpose the proceedings under the Act between the landlord and lessee are maintainable and bound to proceed. The question as to who is the true landlord of the disputed property shall also be tested by the court below. The implications of Smt. Sneh Lata Misra being landlady by virtue of inducting the revisionists as tenants, if any, are also open to be considered in the pending proceedings but this of course would be dependent on the order to be passed in SCC Revision No. 113 of 2016 and the connected matter. The trial court has rightly rejected the applications filed by the revisionists which certainly do not fall within the scope of Section 23 of the Act. Accordingly, both the revisions are hereby rejected.