SHER MOHAMMAD Vs. VINOD PRAKASH
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.) This revision has been filed by the revisionist/ tenant against the judgment and decree dated 11.10.2011 passed by the learned District Judge, Nainital in S.C.C. No. 5 of 1984 'Smt. Chandra Bhaga Vs. Sher Mohammad' whereby the suit for eviction, arrears of rent and damages was decreed with cost in favour of the plaintiff (respondent herein).
(2.) Precisely stated that the property in dispute is a shop in which the revisionist was a tenant of Smt. Chandra Bhaga-the landlady. The landlady filed a suit for ejectment and recovery of arrears of rent and damages against the revisionist after serving upon the revisionist a notice of demand and termination of tenancy alleging that the revisionist has not paid the rent since 01.08.1974. The revisionist contested the suit and filed his written statement contending that he has paid the rent to the landlady who has not issued the receipts therefor. The revisionist, after receiving the notice of demand, in order to save his tenancy, offered the landlady entire amount claimed by her but she refused to accept the same. Thereafter, the revisionist remitted the amount through money orders, which too was not received by the landlady, and as such, the revisionist deposited the amount in the Court of Munsif, Haldwani under Section 30 of the U.P. Act XIII of 1972. On these submissions, the revisionist claimed that he was not in arrears of rent on the date of filing of the suit, and as such, the suit was liable to be dismissed. The respondent-Vinod Prakash examined himself as attorney of the plaintiff-landlady. The revisionist examined himself to prove his case. The parties also lead documentary evidence. The learned District Judge, by judgment and decree dated 28.5.1990, decreed the suit. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree, the revisionist preferred a revision before High Court, Allahabad bearing Civil Revision No. 692 of 1996. After hearing the parties, the revision was allowed and the judgment and decree of the Court below was set aside and the matter was remanded to the Court below for decision afresh. A review application was moved by the landlady before the High Court, Allahabad against the judgment dated 21.05.1993. The said review application was rejected by the High Court, Allahabad by order dated 04.01.2010. Thereafter, the learned Court below proceeded with the case. During the pendency of the review application, the plaintiff-landlady died and the respondent was substituted in place of the plaintifflandlady as her sole legal representative in the suit before the learned Court below. The learned District Judge has again passed a decree for eviction of the revisionist from the premises in dispute vide impugned judgment and order dated 11.10.2011 and the revisionist, being aggrieved by the said decision, has come up in this revision.
(3.) I have heard Mr. Sudhir Kumar, Advocate for the revisionist, Mr. S.K. Posti, Advocate for respondent and perused the material available on record.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.