Prakash Krishna - (1.) THE S.C.C. Suit No. 80 of 1998 was filed by the present petitioner namely Smt. Radha Devi Sahu alongwith Beni Prasad for recovery of arrears of rent and ejectment against Devendra Bahadur Singh (who has died during the pendency of the litigation) and his brother Indra Bahadur Singh who is respondent No. 1, herein. THE suit was instituted on the pleas inter alai that Devendra Bahadur Singh was the tenant of house No. 300B, Attarsuiya, Allahabad, who is in arrears of rent amounting to Rs. 6,456 and whose tenancy has been determined by a notice dated 15th of June, 1998. During the pendency of the said suit Beni Prasad, the co-plaintiff, expired. It was stated by Smt. Radha Devi, the other co-plaintiff, that the property in dispute has been gifted by Beni Prasad in her favour by means of registered gift deed dated 9th of February, 1996.
(2.) THE suit was not contested by Shri Devendra Bahadur Singh. It was contested only by Indra Bahadur Singh. He claimed the relationship of landlord and tenant in between the plaintiff No. 1, i.e., Beni Prasad (who has died) and himself. In other words, he claimed tenancy in his own right and denied the plaint allegations that the house in dispute was let out to his brother Devendra Bahadur Singh and he has sublet it to him. THE fact that he has taken a house of U. P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad under Jhunsi Avas Yojna was admitted with the rider that presently the said house is not ready for occupation. The trial court, on the basis of the pleadings of the parties, framed issues mentioned in the judgment of the trial court. The suit was decreed by the judgment and decree dated 29th of September, 2004, for the ejectment from the disputed house No. 300B, Attarsuiya, Allahabad as also for recovery of arrears of rent amounting to Rs. 6,456 altogether with the outstanding water tax and the cost of notice etc. Against the said judgment and decree, a revision was preferred by Indra Bahadur Singh alone. It was numbered as S.C.C. Revision No. 845 of 2004 which has been allowed by the impugned order dated 10.1.2007 by the Additional District Judge, Court No. 13 and the matter has been remanded to the trial court with certain directions mentioned therein. Challenging the aforesaid judgment and order the present writ petition has been filed. The pleadings are complete. Shri B. D. Mandhyan, the learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the revisional court committed illegality in remanding the matter to the trial court. The argument is that the revisions should have been decided by the revisional court or it should have remitted the issue, if so required. Elaborating the argument, he submits that as to whether Indra Bahadur Singh who had filed revision and is respondent No. 1 herein, was the tenant or not, is the lone issue which could have been adjudicated upon by the revisional court. There is no evidence on record to show that Devendra Bahadur Singh had left any heir.
(3.) NONE appeared on behalf of the contesting respondent even in the revised list. Considered the aforesaid submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner. It has come on record that Devendra Bahadur Singh has died while he was serving in B.H.E.L. outside Allahabad.;