SURYA PRAKASH KESARWANI,J. - (1.) Heard Sri Gyan Prakash Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner.
(2.) This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed praying to set aside the order dated 13.2.2009 in SCC Suit No.01 of 2002 (Mukund Lal v. Sanjay Kumar and others) passed by the Civil Judge (J.D.), Azamgarh and the order dated 18.2.2017 in SCC Revision No.326 of 2010 (Shyam Kumari and another v. Mukund Lal and others) passed by the Additional District Judge, Court No.1, Azamgarh.
(3.) Briefly stated facts of the present case are that the plaintiff respondent nos.6 and 7 filed SCC Case No.01 of 2002 (Mukund Lal v. Sanjay Kumar and others) in the Court of Civil Judge (J.D.), Azamgarh for eviction and recovery of rent with respect to the disputed tenanted shop. In the aforesaid case, three issues were framed. All the issues were decided in the favour of plaintiff respondent nos.6 and 7. The learned Civil Judge (J.D.), Azamgarh held in the impugned judgment dated 13.2.2009 that one Sri Ghanshyam Das was the tenant of the disputed shop and the tenancy was succeeded by his sons, namely, Sri Sanjay Kumar, Sri Shishir Kumar and Sri Vallabh Das. In their some alleged settlement, tenanted shop was given to one Sri Balram and therefore, the petitioner being the son of late Sri Balram claimed the tenancy. The stand so taken was rejected by the Civil Judge (J.D.), Azamgarh for reason that the tenant can not change the tenancy. The deceased Balram was not a family member of the original tenant. In this regard, the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the Case of Ganesh Trivedi v. Sundar Devi and others), AIR 2002 SC 676 was also relied. While disposing of the issue no.2, the Civil Judge (J.D.), Azamgarh recorded the finding that undisputedly, the rent was not paid since March, 1993 even after notice. Aggrieved with this order dated 13.2.2009 passed by the Civil Judge (J.D.), Azamgarh, the petitioner and the defendant respondent nos.1 to 5 jointly filed SCC Revision No.326 of 2010. The said revision was decided by the impugned order dated 18.2.2017 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Court No.1, Azamgarh, as under; I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and gone through the record of the case. Learned counsel for the revisionist has argued that the revisionist have vacated the premises of the respondent land lord and thus they have complied with the order passed by learned lower Court. Presently they have no grievance against the judgment and order passed by learned lower Court. A perusal of the record reveals that the revisionists have filed application with affidavit of Vineet Agarwal and Vivek Agarwal to the effect that they have (sic) all the arrears of rent and they have vacated the premises of the land lord. It has also been mentioned that both the parties have entered in compromise and they do want to contest the revision against the impugned judgment and order passed by learned lower Court. A perusal of the record shows that learned lower Court has considered the entire evidence adduced by both of the parties and came to the conclusion that the defendant no. 1 to 3 had unauthorizedly sub-letted the tenancy premises to defendant no. 4, it is also established that the defendants/tenants are proved defaulter in payment of rent for four months, since month of March 1993. On the basis of discussion made above, I am of the opinion that learned lower Court has committed no illegality or material irregularity in passing the impugned judgment and order, therefore, the revision has no force in the eye of law and the same deserves to be dismissed. ORDER The revision is dismissed. The order dated 13.02.2009 passed by Judge of Small Causes Court/Civil Judge (Jr. Div.) City Azamgarh, in SCC Suit No. 01 of 2002, Mukund Lal etc. v. Sanjay Kumar and others , is hereby confirmed. Let the record be sent back to lower Court forthwith.;