DEVENDRA PRAKASH BANSAL Vs. SUNIL KUMAR VERMA
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Devendra Prakash Bansal
Sunil Kumar Verma
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.) This appeal by special leave by the original landlord seeks to challenge the judgment and order dated 16th February, 2010 passed by
the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad allowing Civil Miscellaneous
Petition No.36117 of 2009 preferred by the respondent herein and
setting aside the decree for eviction passed by the Trial Court and
confirmed by the Revisional Court.
(2.) The appellant -landlord filed S.C.C. No.6 of 2007 in Small Causes Court, Bijnor, seeking decree for eviction in respect of suit shop namely,
one situated in Mohalla Oazijadgan, Qasba, Pargana, Tehsil Chandpur,
District Bijnor inter alia on the ground that the suit shop was sub -let by
the tenant -defendant No.1 to defendant No.2. In support of his case,
the appellant brought on record photographs which were marked as
GA -35/1 to GA -35/2, GS -36/1, GA 36/2 and GA -37, to establish that it
was the sub -tenant who was carrying on business in jewellery from the
suit shop. These photographs were put to the sub -tenant who appeared
in the witness box as D.W. 2. D.W. 2 in his evidence accepted the fact
that he could be seen in these photographs and that he was holding
money in his hand. This witness also admitted that it is the owner who
normally sits on the gaddi of the shop and that in the photographs he
was seen sitting on gaddi. After considering the entirety of the material
on record, the Trial court accepted that the suit shop was sub -let by
defendant No.1 to defendant No.2. The Trial Court by its judgment and
order dated 6th September, 2008, decreed the suit for eviction and
directed the defendants to hand over vacant possession of the shop to
the appellant within one month from the date of the order.
(3.) The matter was carried further by the tenant by filing S.C.C. Revision No.15/2008 in the Court of Additional District Judge, Bijnor.
The revisional Court after considering rival submissions and material on
record came to the following conclusion: -
"I am of the view that the learned court below very well discussed the evidence while passing the impugned judgment and order because the record reveals that the evidence which is available on record directly indicates that the Rakesh Kumar was sitting in the disputed shop and was carrying his business. Rakesh Kumar himself admitted that he carried business in disputed shop. The photographs and some documentary evidence indicate that Rakesh Kumar was sub -tenant on the disputed shop."
With this view, the revisional Court dismissed S.C.C. Revision
No.15 of 2008 by its judgment and order dated 2nd March, 2009.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.