Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 521 (ALL)

Sushil Kumar Pal v. Meena Jaiswal

2020-02-17

RAJAN ROY

body2020
JUDGMENT : Rajan Roy, J. 1. Heard learned Counsel for revisionist and learned Counsel for respondents. 2. This is a revision under section 25 of Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887 challenging an order dated 3.1.2017 passed by Small Causes Court on an application filed by the revisionist under Order I, Rule 10, C.P.C. in SCC suit No. 193 of 2014 filed by the respondent No. 1, who is the owner and landlord of the premises in respect of which the suit has been filed. 3. The application for impleadment of revisionist has been rejected. The contention of the learned Counsel for revisionist Shri Amrendra Kumar Tripathi is that even if the revisionist-applicant is not a necessary party, he is certainly a proper party in terms of what has been held by Division Bench of this Court in the case of Dr. Shyam Chandra Srivastava v. Estate of Padmashri Smt. Savitri Sahni, (2010) 82 ALR 198, as in his absence an effective order cannot be made with regard to the dispute before Small Cause Court and his presence is necessary for a complete and final decision in question involved in the proceeding, especially as he may be bound by result of such proceedings. 4. The contention of Shri Amrendra Nath Tripathi is that the son of original land owner and land lady Ram Rati namely Kamal Jaiswal, who was the caretaker of the premises in question, had executed a lease deed in his favour on 4.9.2009 leasing the said premises in his favour for a period of 15 years on terms and conditions mentioned therein. This transaction according to him involved a payment of Rs. 8 lakhs as 'Pagdi' which was returnable on vacation of the premises and/or termination of the lease. However, he could not dispute the fact that the alleged lease deed was not registered though considering the terms mentioned therein and especially the consideration of the tenure of the lease it was mandatorily registrable under section 17(1)(d) of the Registration Act, 1908 and if it is not registered then it cannot be read in evidence in view of section 49 of the said act. Be that it may according to Shri Amrendra Nath Tripathi, based on the aforesaid lease deed possession was given by Shri Kamal Jaiswal allegedly with the permission of the owner and the landlady to the revisionist who in-turn sub-let the premises to respondent No. 2 and 3 and after expiry of the license for sale of country made liquor issued to respondent No. 2 and 3 in 31.3.2015, the respondent No. 2 and 3 in the suit handed the possession back to the revisionist. Therefore, in these circumstances he says that he is a proper party if not a necessary party. Learned Counsel for revisionist also informed the Court that the suit for injunction was filed by the revisionist against Shri Kamal Jaiswal wherein a temporary injunction has been granted restraining Shri Kamal Jaiswal from evicting the revisionist herein except by due process of law. However, even in this suit learned Counsel for revisionist could not dispute the fact that neither the original owner and landlady Smt. Ram Rati i.e., mother of Kamal Jaiswal nor the subsequent purchaser her daughter namely Meena Jaiswal had been impleaded as defendants, i.e., they had not been impleaded. 5. On the other hand Shri Rajeiu Kumar Tripathi learned Counsel appearing for respondent No. 1 contended that the very basis for seeking impleadment is a lease allegedly executed by Shri Kamal Jaiswal in favour of revisionist. He says that firstly Kamal Jaiswal was neither the owner nor landlord of the said premises nor was he the power of attorney holder of the owner and landlady Smt. Ram Rati, therefore the lease deed could not have even executed by him and is void on this ground. Secondly, he says that the lease deed considering its terms had to be registered and if it has not been registered instead it has been alleged to have been reduced in writing on a stamp paper of only Rs. 100/- therefore it has no legal sanctity at all and cannot be read in evidence in view of section 49 of the Registration Act, 1908. Thirdly he says that entire story set up by the revisionist is a cooked up one. There is a relationship of landlord and tenant between the plaintiff who has purchased the property from the erstwhile owner and landlady Ram Rati with the respondent No. 2 and 3 who are her tenants. Thirdly he says that entire story set up by the revisionist is a cooked up one. There is a relationship of landlord and tenant between the plaintiff who has purchased the property from the erstwhile owner and landlady Ram Rati with the respondent No. 2 and 3 who are her tenants. He also says that in the proceedings under section 145, Cr.P.C. the report did not mention possession of the revisionists and there was no admission on part of the erstwhile landlady and owner about the revisionist possession and no such documents have been annexed before this Court by the revisionists. 6. After hearing learned Counsel for parties and going through records this Court is of the view that Small Causes Court has limited jurisdiction in terms of section 15 of Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887 read with second schedule thereto as amended for its application in State of Uttar Pradesh read with Order VII and section 50 of C.P.C. It is confined to disputes arising from determination of lease between lessor and lessees and primarily landlord tenants relationship are adjudicated by it. Other disputes involving eviction of unauthorised and illegal occupants is beyond the jurisdiction of Small Causes Court. Learned Counsel for revisionist could not satisfy the Court that Shri Kamal Jaiswal was either the owner or landlord of the premises in question having a right to execute a lease deed in his favour that too an unregistered one which could give him any right in respect to the premises which is the subject-matter of the SCC suit in question. Considering the jurisdiction of the SCC Court and the dispute raised in the suit, the subject-matter in issue before the SCC Court, first of all it is to be considered by the SCC Court as to whether there is a landlord-tenant relationship between the plaintiff and defendants, if so, whether the tenants are in arrears of rent and/or liable to be evicted on the said basis or on the basis of determination of lease and determination of damages for the use and occupation, nothing beyond this is required to be seen. In this scenario this Court is of the view that the revisionist herein has no role to play unless he is able to show even prima facie before this Court that landlord tenant relationship existed between him and Meena Jaiswal or the erstwhile landlady and owner Ram Rati, which he has been unable to do before this Court. Even if an order is passed in the said SCC suit it is difficult to understand as to how the revisionist would be bound by it. In the event, at the stage of execution, if it is the claim of the revisionist that he is in possession of the premises and was not a party in the SCC suit, then, he can, if otherwise permissible, maintain proceedings under Order XXI, Rule 97, C.P.C. but there is no occasion for this Court to allow his application under Order I, Rule 10 and quash the impugned order passed by the SCC Court in these proceedings. As regards the independent claim based on possession on the basis of the aforesaid lease and the amount of Rs. 8 lakhs paid by him is concerned, the revisionist can, if permissible in law, maintain a separate suit if he has a cause of action in this regard. A suit for injunction has already been filed by him but he has not impleaded either the erstwhile landlady Ram Rati and owner nor the existing owner and landlady Meena Jaiswal i.e., the plaintiff in the suit at hand. In this view of the matter even though there are some errors in the impugned orders of the SCC Court wherein the revisionist has been treated as the sub-lessee, considering the reasons given hereinabove there is no valid ground for this Court to interfere with the operative portion of the said order as this Court is of the view that the revisionist is neither a necessary nor a proper party to the said suit. 7. With these observations, the revision under section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887 is dismissed. 8. The observations made hereinabove are only for the purpose of adjudicating validity of the impugned order and application of the revisionist under Order I, Rule 10, C.P.C. and it shall not adversely affect any other proceedings between the parties which may be pending in any Court.