SHAHIN BEGUM Vs. SAHNE ILAHI
LAWS(UTN)-2001-11-9
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
Decided on November 02,2001

Shahin Begum Appellant
VERSUS
Sahne Ilahi Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

SIRAJ AHMAD SIDDIQUI VS. PREM NATH KAPOOR [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

- (1.)THROUGH this revision u/s 25 of the Provincial Small Causes Courts Act the revisionist (defendant) assailed the judgment and order dated 25 -11 -1997 and decree dated 10 -12 -1997 passed by the Judge Small Cause Courts (District Judge), Pauri Garhwal in S.C.C. Suit No.2 of 1992 titled as Sri Sahne IIahi Vs. Smt. Shahin Begum, whereby the learned J.S.CC. (District Judge). decreed the suit of the plaintiff for eviction of the defendant from the suit premises and for recovery of the arrears of rent and damages amounting to Rs. 13,554/ - with costs and pendente lite and future damages @ Rs. 300/ - per month excluding water tax, sewerage tax and electricity charges on the prevalent rates.
(2.)THE suit no. 2 of 1992 was filed by the plaintiff (respondent) for recovery of rent and ejectment of the defendant (revisionist) from the suit premises on the ground that the plaintiff is the owner of the three storeyed house situated at Jaya Nand Bharati Marg, Kotdwar within the municipal limits of Kotdwar and the defendant was a tenant in two room set with a latrine, bathroom of second storey in the said building @ Rs. 300/ - per month exclusive of 12.5% water tax, 3% sewerage tax and Rs. 30 as electric charges. The defendant paid rent, water tax, etc. upto October, 1987.The defendant did not pay rent, taxes and electric charges since November 1987. Thus, the plaintiff gave notice on 22 -1 -1992 to the defendant demanding arrears of rent and other damages due payable within one month failing which the tenancy would terminate. The said notice was returned on 24 -01 -1992 with an endorsement "refused to receive" by the defenant. The defendant neither vacated the premises nor paid the rent within one month from the service of notice, hence the suit was filed.
(3.)THE plaintiff (respondent) claimed rent and damages for three years and claimed further damages pendente lite and furrture for use and occupation. The defendant was served. She appeared before the Court, moved application and also filed written statement. In the written statement, the defendant denied the arrears of rent and also disputed the payability of water tax, sewerage tax and electricity charges. According to the defendant, it was inclusive in the rent.
After filing of the written statement, the defendant did not deposit the admitted rent. Therefore, an application was moved by the plaintiff under Order 15 Rule 5 of the Civil Procedure Code. On the next date, since the defendant did not appear, the Court ordered to proceed ex parte. The application under Order 15 Rule 5 was withdrawn and suit proceeded ex parte. On 16 -06 -1993, the plaintiff was examined. The suit was decreed ex parte. The decree was prepared on 24 -6 -1993. Thereafter, the defenant moved an application under order 9 Rule 13, C.P.C. which was allowed. On depositing the entire decretal amount, ex parte judgment and decree dated 17 -6 -1993 and 24 -6 -1993, respectively were set aside.

;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.