Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 316 (UTT)

ANIL GUPTA v. GANESH MISHRA

2019-05-07

LOK PAL SINGH

body2019
JUDGMENT Hon'ble Lok Pal Singh, J. Petitioner has invoked the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, seeking writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned judgment and order dated 27.08.2016 passed by learned Ist Additional District Judge, Haldwani, District Nainital in SCC Revision No. 86 of 2015, Jai Dev Mishra vs. Anil Gupta and others. 2. Brief facts, of the case, are that petitioner filed SCC suit No. 4 of 2014, Anil Gupta vs. Sri Ganesh Mishra and others seeking decree of eviction/ejectment and recovery of rent against respondent no. 1 from the property in dispute with the assertion that demise property was let out to Ganesh Mishra but he sub-let the same to his brother Jaydev Mishra and one Sri Purushottam Sanwal. 3. Respondents had filed their separate written statements, denying the averments of the plaint. 4. The trial court on the pleadings of the parties framed the following point of determination:- (i) Whether respondent no. 1 has sub-let the property in dispute without taking prior permission of the petitioner? (ii) Whether respondent no. 1 has committed default in payment of rent and respondent is entitled to get the benefit of section 20(4) of the Act? 5. Parties adduced their documentary and oral evidence in the suit. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the trial court after relying upon the rent deed executed between landlord and tenant Ganesh Mishra has held that the suit property was let out to Ganesh Mishra, which has been sub-let to his brother Jaydev Mishra, who is not the family member of Ganesh Mishra in view of the provisions contained in Section 3(g) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulating of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred as Act No. 13 of 1972). 6. For kind reference, section 3(g) of the Act No. 13 of 1972 is extracted hereunder:- (g) “Family", in relation to a landlord or tenant of a building, means, his or her- (i) Spouse (ii) male lineal descendants' (iii) such parents, grandparents and any unmarried or widowed or divorced or judicially separated daughter or daughter of a male lineal descendant, as may have been normally residing with him or her. and includes, in relation to a landlord, any female having a legal right of residence in that building. 7. The trial court also recorded its finding on issue no. and includes, in relation to a landlord, any female having a legal right of residence in that building. 7. The trial court also recorded its finding on issue no. 2 that tenant has committed default in payment of rent, therefore, respondent no. 2 is not entitled to get the benefit of Section 20 (4) of the Act No. 13 of 1972 and decreed the suit of the plaintiff/petitioner by judgment and order dated 30.09.2015. 8. Feeling aggrieved by order dated 23.09.2015, respondent no. 2 alone preferred revision no. 86 of 2015 before the District Judge, Nainital which was transferred to Ist Additional District Judge, Haldwani District Nainital. 9. The revisional court vide impugned judgment and order dated 27.08.2016 had allowed the revision on the ground that respondent no. 2 Jaydev Mishra was minor at the time of letting of the demise property to him, therefore, rent deed is void and considering the fact that respondent no. 2 is working in the shop, therefore, he is entitled to get the benefit of section 20 (4) of Act No. 13 of 1972 and allowed the revision. 10. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 11. Mr. Sudhir Kumar, Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner would submit that the trial court while decreeing the suit has recorded the categorical finding that the demise property was let out by the petitioner to Ganesh Mishra-respondent no. 1, who sub-let the said property to his brother Jaydev Mishra. It is further contended that amount was deposited by respondent no. 2 under section 30 of the Act No. 13 of 1972, who is not the tenant and the arrears of land, half cost of the suit and expenses along with 9% were not deposited on the first date of hearing of the suit and respondent no. 2 is not entitled to get the benefit of Section 20 (4) of Act No. 13 of 1972. It is further contended that the revisional court without reversing/setting aside the findings recorded by the trial court has allowed the revision in cryptic manner and ignored the definition of “family" in view of Section 3(g) of the Act No. 13 of 1972 and has exceeded its jurisdiction, thus impugned order is liable to be set aside. 12. On the other hand, Mr. Alok Mahra, learned counsel for respondent no. 12. On the other hand, Mr. Alok Mahra, learned counsel for respondent no. 2 would submit that at the time of creating the tenancy brother of respondent no. 1 was minor, thus tenancy cannot be created in his favour. It is also contended that on the first date of hearing an amount of Rs. 51,700/- was deposited by respondent no. 2 therefore, respondent no. 2 was entitled to get benefit of section 20 (4) of Act No. 13 of 1972. He would further contend that the revisional court has rightly allowed the revision. 13. Perusal of the record would reveal that the rent deed was executed between the petitioner and respondent no. 1 Ganesh Mishra. Rent deed was not executed by Ganesh Mishra through his natural guardian, as claimed by respondent no. 2. The trial court has recorded the categorical finding on issue no. 1 and 2 but the revisional court, without reversing the findings recorded by the trial court, has recorded its own findings, allowed the revision and dismissed the suit of the petitioner. 14. Perusal of the impugned order dated 27.08.2016 would show that the revisional court has not assigned the independent reasons in allowing the revision. Neither the pleadings of the parties, nor evidence nor law has been considered by the revisional court at the time of allowing the revision. Judicial determination has to be seen as an outcome of a reasoned process of adjudication initiated and documented by a party based at the pleadings, events and evidence, thus, court's clear reasoning and analysis is the basic requirement for judicial determination when parties demand it so that they can administer justice justly and correctly in relation to the findings on facts and law. In absence of reasoning and analysis, the judicial decision cannot be said to be a legal document. Judicial decision must be pursued by the parties and by the society at large, as being the result of a correct and judicious application of facts and evidence in the matter so the parties may be convinced that their case has been properly considered and appreciated by the court below and has been decided in accordance with law, if this has not been done it will create confusion in the mind of the litigants. 15. The impugned order does not satisfy the requirements as indicated above. 15. The impugned order does not satisfy the requirements as indicated above. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Uttaranchal & anr. vs. Sunil Kumar Vaish and Ors. (2011) 8 SCC 670 has held as follows:- “17. Of late, we have come across several orders which would indicate that some of the judges are averse to decide the disputes when they are complex or complicated, and would find out ways and means to pass on the burden to their brethren or remand the matters to the lower courts not for good reasons. Few judges, for quick disposal, and for statistical purposes, get rid of the cases, driving the parties to move representations before some authority with a direction to that authority to decide the dispute, which the judges should have done. Often, causes of action, which otherwise had attained finality, resurrect, giving a fresh causes of action. Duty is cast on the judges to give finality to the litigation so that the parties would know where they stand. 18. Judicial determination has to be seen as an outcome of a reasoned process of adjudication initiated and documented by a party based, on mainly events which happened in the past. Courts' clear reasoning and analysis are basic requirements in a judicial determination when parties demand it so that they can administer justice justly and correctly, in relation to the findings on law and facts. Judicial decision must be perceived by the parties and by the society at large, as being the result of a correct and proper application of legal rules, proper evaluation of the evidence adduced and application of legal procedure. The parties should be convinced that their case has been properly considered and decided. 19. Judicial decisions must in principle be reasoned and the quality of a judicial decision depends principally on the quality of its reasoning. Proper reasoning is an imperative necessity which should not be sacrificed for expediency. The statement of reasons not only makes the decision easier for the parties to understand and many a times such decisions would be accepted with respect. Proper reasoning is an imperative necessity which should not be sacrificed for expediency. The statement of reasons not only makes the decision easier for the parties to understand and many a times such decisions would be accepted with respect. The requirement of providing reasons obliges the judge to respond to the parties' submissions and to specify the points that justify the decision and make it lawful and it enables the society to understand the functioning of the judicial system and it also enhances the faith and confidence of the people in the judicial system." 16. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Kusuma Devi vs Sheopati Devi & ors., 2009 JT, 163 has held that unreasoned order is not sustainable in law and liable to be set aside. 17. The revisional court, without setting aside the findings recorded by the trial court, has passed the impugned order in a cryptic manner and allowed the revision. The impugned order, being unreasoned order, is not sustainable in the eye of the law and this Court is of the view that same is liable to be set aside and it would be just and proper that the matter is remitted to the court below to decide the same in accordance with law. 18. In view of the foregoing discussion, impugned order dated 27.08.2016 is hereby set aside. Writ petition is allowed. The matter is remanded back to the revisional court to decide the revision on its own merit, after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and respondent no. 2 Jaydev Mishra. Insofar as respondent no. 1 and 3 are concerned, they have not challenged the order of the revisional court and despite service affected upon them in the writ petition no one turned up on their behalf, thus, they need not to be heard before the court below. Considering the fact that the suit is of the year 2014, it is expected that the revisional court shall decide the revision preferably within three months from the date of production of certified copy of this order. It is made clear that observations made by this Court in the body of the judgment will not influence the revisional court. 19. Parties shall remain present before the Ist Additional District Judge, Haldwani, District Nainital on 20.05.2019. However, no order as to costs.