Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 301 (ALL)

Mukesh Ghai v. Ram Gopal Agrawal

2017-01-20

PANKAJ MITHAL

body2017
JUDGMENT Pankaj Mithal, J. -- Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. This revision has been preferred under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Causes Court Act, 1887 against the judgement and order dated 30.01.2013 passed by the Special Judge/Small Causes Court, Jhansi decreeing S.C.C. Suit NO.14 of 2010, Ram Gopal Agarwal Vs. Mukesh Ghai for the eviction of the defendant revisionist from the house No.G/M-102/370, J.D.A. Colony, Virangana Nagar, District Jhansi. 3. The plaintiff respondent instituted the aforesaid suit for the eviction of the defendant revisionist from the said house on the ground that the provisions of U.P. Act No.13 of 1972 are not applicable to it and that the tenancy of the defendant revisionist was determined vide notice dated 13.08.2010 under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. 4. The suit was contested by the defendant revisionist on the ground that the building is old and the above Act is applicable to it. He has not defaulted in the payment of rent and is therefore not liable to be evicted. 5. The court below on the basis of the evidence on record has returned a finding that the plot on which the house exist was allotted to the plaintiff respondent on 06.01.1996 by the Development Authority. Its possession was delivered to him on 05.05.1997 and the lease deed was executed on 27.03.1996. The map of the house was sanctioned on 21.07.1997. It was first assessed to house tax with the Municipal Board in the year 2006-07. 6. In view of the above findings, as its construction is deemed to have been completed after 26.04.1985, it is exempted for 40 years and the provisions of the Act are not applicable to it. 7. I find no error or illegality in the finding of the court below that the house in question is not covered by the provisions of the aforesaid Act. 8. The notice dated 13.08.2010 determining the tenancy of the defendant revisionist under Section 106 of the T.P. Act was duly proved by the plaintiff respondent. The copy of notice and receipt of the registered post were all brought on record and proved. The postal report established that the notice was served upon the defendant revisionist on 17.08.2010. 9. The notice as such stood proved and served upon the defendant revisionist. He could not establish any illegality in the notice. The copy of notice and receipt of the registered post were all brought on record and proved. The postal report established that the notice was served upon the defendant revisionist on 17.08.2010. 9. The notice as such stood proved and served upon the defendant revisionist. He could not establish any illegality in the notice. Accordingly, the tenancy of the defendant revisionist was validly determined. 10. In these circumstances, the default in payment of rent if any was not material. However, in this regard also a finding has been returned that the defendant revisionist defaulted in the payment of rent w.e.f.01.05.2010 @ Rs.2500/- per month. 11. The findings recorded by the court below on all the aforesaid points are all findings of fact based upon evidence on record. There is no perversity or any jurisdictional error in returning those findings. 12. The court of first instance has clearly answered all the points arising for determination in the suit. 13. In view of above, there is no scope for any interference with the impugned judgement and order in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. 14. The Revision lacks merit and is dismissed.