- (1.) A memorandum of understanding understood by the parties thereto differently has given rise to these proceedings that have travelled from the Court of Judge Small Causes to the High Court then to the Supreme Court and now pending here. The Plaintiff-opposite party claims that a relationship of landlord and tenant or lessor and lessee came into existence whereas the Defendant-revisionist denies any such relationship. That they are related to each other and belong to the same family is however accepted by all of them. The intention of the parties at the time of recording the memorandum is differently put forth hence the exercise undertaken to come to an understanding has come on the verge of being a futile exercise.
(2.) The Judge Small Causes, Allahabad in SCC No. 13 of 1997 found the relationship of landlord and tenant to be established between the parties and he decreed the suit for eviction and arrears of rent on 5.2.2003. He held that the provisions of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 (U.P. Urban Buildings [Regulation of Letting Rent and Eviction] Act 1972) were not applicable to the building. In Civil Revision No. 275 of 2003 filed under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act the High Court affirmed the order vide the judgment dated 10.12.2007. The Defendant-revisionist filed Civil Appeal Nos. 6142-6143 of 2009 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 1591-1592/2008) before the Supreme Court wherefrom the matter has been sent back for fresh decision upon setting aside the judgment dated 10.12.2007.
(3.) Paragraph 12 and 13 of the judgment dated 9.9.2009 of the Supreme Court in the Civil Appeal is quoted here under: (12) The true nature of relationship between the parties concerning the occupation of subject premises by the Appellant was required to be ascertained from the family arrangement which the High Court failed to do and thereby committed grave error in not considering the matter in right perspective. As a matter of fact, a material clause like Clause 8 of the family settlement has been overlooked altogether affecting decision in the matter. (13) We do not intend to deal with the matter elaborately as, in our considered judgment, the matter needs to be reconsidered by the High Court, inter alia, on the aspects as to whether under the family settlement dated August 23, 1993, a relationship of lessor or lessee (or for that matter landlord and tenant) came into existence between the parties and, if answer to the said question is in the affirmative, whether such lease is determinable.;