PRAKASH BHALOTIA Vs. INDRA CHANDRA GOYAL
LAWS(ALL)-2013-1-124
HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Decided on January 31,2013

Prakash Bhalotia Appellant
VERSUS
Indra Chandra Goyal Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) HEARD Shri Arvind Srivastava, learned counsel for the revisionist and Shri M.K. Gupta, learned counsel for the respondent.
(2.) THE present revision has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 22.1.2001 passed by the Xth Additional District Judge/Small Causes Court-10, Gorakhpur in Small Causes case no. 1 /92(Shri Prakash Bhalotiya Vs. Indra Prakash Goyal). The suit for eviction on the ground of default in payment of rent was filed by the revisionist ­landlord with respect to shop no.4 situated in Mohalla Begpur Muglani, Ram Prasad Bholotia Market, District Gorakhpur. The suit was filed on the ground that shop in question was given on rent for a period of five years at the rate of Rs. 330/- per month and period of five years had expired on 1.7.1985. As such the tenancy of the respondent came to an end. The other grounds were that premises in dispute was assessed for the first time in the year 1988 and the rent of the building was more than Rs. 2000/-per month as such building in question is exempted from the provision of U.P. Urban Buildings( Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Eviction Act 1972( hereinafter referred to as the 'Act 1972') in view of section 2(1) (g) and section 2(2) of the Act. More over the tenant has not paid rent and is doing business of sale of medicines in partnership without the permission of the landlord. Notice dated 9.7.1991 determining the tenancy on the ground mentioned above was served upon the tenant on 9.7.1991. Despite service of notice, neither tenant had vacated the premises nor paid rent with water tax and house tax. The small causes court framed various issues and after discussion of the evidence on record dismissed the suit.
(3.) ASSAILING the judgment and order passed by the Small Causes Court dated 22.1.2001 dismissing the suit, learned counsel for the revisionist submitted that court below had committed illegality and order passed by it calls for interference in the supervisory jurisdiction under section 25 of the Provincial Small Causes Court Act( hereinafter referred to as the Act) .;


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