BIMLA BANSAL Vs. DIGAMBAR JAIN PANCHAYATI MANDIR & JAIN BHAWAN
LAWS(UTN)-2013-3-88
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
Decided on March 04,2013

Bimla Bansal Appellant
VERSUS
Digambar Jain Panchayati Mandir And Jain Bhawan Respondents

JUDGEMENT

B.S.VERMA, J. - (1.) THIS revision, preferred u/s 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Court Act, 1887 is directed against the judgment and decree dated 30.9.2012/3.10.2012 passed by III Additional District Judge, Dehradun in SCC Case No.26 of 2007 Sri Digambar Jain Panchayati Mandir and Jain Bhawan vs. Bimla Bansal and others.
(2.) BRIEF facts of the case, giving rise to this revision are, that a SCC Suit No.26 of 2007 was filed by the respondent against the revisionists for realisation of rent and ejectment from the shop in question. The suit was contested by the revisionist -defendants by filing written statement. Both the parties adduced evidence before the Judge, S.C.C. In the suit, stand was taken by the plaintiff that it is a public religious and charitable institution therefore the provisions of U.P. Act No.13 of 1972 are not applicable to the shop in question. The revisionist contended before the trial court that the plaintiff -respondent is not a public religious institution therefore exemption is not attracted.
(3.) THE learned Additional District Judge framed as many as seven points for determination in the suit as follows: - 1. Whether the plaintiff is a Public Religious Charitable Institution and whether the U.P. Act No.13 of 1972 are not applicable to the shop in question? 2. Whether the defendants/revisionist are in default of rent from 1.5.2006 to 22.12.2006 @ Rs.1500/ - per month, and if so, its effect? 3. Whether the defendants have committed default in payment of rent? 4. Whether the court has no jurisdiction to hear and dispose of the suit? 5. To what relief the plaintiff is entitled for? 6. Whether the tenancy of the defendants was terminated vide notice dated 23.11.2006? If so, its effect. 7. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for damages? In support of his case, the plaintiff filed the affidavit of Sanjay Jain as oral evidence and in documentary evidence filed list 7 -Ga, notice 23.11.2003, receipt of post office and other relevant documents. On the other hand, the revisionist -defendant examined Sanjay Bansal as D.W.1 and also filed some documents.;


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