Saeed-Uz-Zaman Siddiqi, J. - (1.) Heard learned counsel for revisionist and perused the records.
(2.) The revisionist has preferred this revision against the order dated 4.8.2012 passed by the Court of Additional District judge (E.C. Act), Lucknow in S.C.C. Suit No.24 of 2006, Bharat Sewa Sansthan v. Punjab National Bank , by which issue nos. 5 and 6 have been decided in negative in the above mentioned suit.
(3.) Brief facts, giving rise to this revision are that the opposite party filed suit for eviction on the ground that plaintiff/opposite party is landlord, in which the defendant/petitioner is tenant. The disputed property was leased out to the defendant on 12.04.1983 through a lease deed for a period of five years with provision of extension for further five years i.e. for the maximum period up to 11.04.1993, but the defendant did not vacate after expiry of ten years period of lease and overstaying since 12.04.1993. It has also been pleaded in para 7 of the plaint that without any authority or permission the defendant has regressed to the status of tress-passer. The lease executed in favour of the defendant stands determined w.e.f. 12.04.1993. Upon the strength of this averment the defendant, who is revisionist before this Court took a plea that the suit has been under valued and insufficient court fee has been paid. These issues were serialized as issue nos. 5 and 6, which were decided as preliminary issues. The defendant did not lead any evidence. Both the issues were decided in negative. The learned Trial Court has mentioned in his order that as per plaint the defendant is in illegal occupation and not in adverse possession. The learned Trial Court has rightly decided that the plaint shall be read as a whole and a single word cannot make the entire version, of the plaint, as a whole, redundant.;