VIDYA SAGAR @ LAXMI NARAIN, PUJARI HANUMAN AND GARUR MANDIR Vs. DISTRICT JUDGE, PAURI GARHWAL
LAWS(UTN)-2012-10-30
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
Decided on October 06,2012

Vidya Sagar @ Laxmi Narain, Pujari Hanuman And Garur Mandir Appellant
VERSUS
DISTRICT JUDGE, PAURI GARHWAL Respondents

JUDGEMENT

B.S.VERMA, J. - (1.) BY means of this petition the petitioner has sought a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the order dated 17 -9 -1998, passed by District Judge, Pauri Garhwal in SCC Revision No. 1 of 1997, Shiv Prasad Sharma Vs. Vidya Sagar @ Laxmi Narain, contained in Annexure No.2 to the writ petition. Further a writ in the nature of mandamus was sought directing the Judge SCC Pauri Garhwal to execute its judgment and decree dated 11 -3 -1997, contained in Annexure No.1 to the writ petition.
(2.) BRIEFLY stated the facts of the case giving rise to this writ petition are that the petitioner had filed a suit for recovery of arrears of rent and ejectment against the respondent No.3. It is alleged in the plaint that the plaintiff is the Pujari of Hanuman and Garur Mandir and the defendant is a tenant in a room of the premises on monthly rent of Rs. 100/ -. Besides the rent, the defendant is also liable to pay house -tax, water -tax etc. Earlier, before filing this suit the defendant had also defaulted in payment of rent and a SCC suit No. 10/1988 was filed which was decreed and the defendant had deposited the whole arrears of rent and water tax along with interest. The defendant is in arrears of rent from 1 -1 -1989 to 3 1 -3 -1992. The plaintiff had sent notice to the defendant demanding arrears of rent and determined his tenancy, but despite service of notice neither the rent was paid nor the defendant vacated the premises, therefore the suit was filed.
(3.) THE defendant filed his W.S. and asserted therein that the suit has been filed on wrong facts. The plaintiff is neither the owner of the disputed premises, nor he is the landlord and relation of landlord andtenant does not exist in between the parties. Two room are in tenancy of the defendant but eviction from one room has been sought. The notice sent is void and illegal. It is further pleaded in the W.S. that the defendant is not liable to pay any water or house tax. The defendant is not liable to be evicted. It is further pleaded that the suit is barred by provisions of Order -2 Rule 2 C.P.C. and the plaintiff is not entitled to any relief. The learned Judge SCC, on the basis of pleadings of parties framed necessary issues in the suit. Thereafter parties adduced their evidence. The learned Judge, S.C.C. on the basis of evidence of parties came to the conclusion that relationship of landlord and tenant exists between the parties and the suit is not barred by the provision of Order 2 Rule 2 C.P.C. The notice is neither illegal nor void. The defendant is a habitual defaulter and is not entitled to get benefit of provision of Section 20(4) of U.P. Act No.13 of 1972. The plaintiff himself has not given the details of the house tax, water tax etc. With these findings the suit was decreed against the defendant.;


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