PAWAN KUMAR SINGHANIA v. MOSMAT SAVITRI DEVI JHUNJHAUNWALA
Case at a glance
Outcome
Allowed
Accordingly, this civil revision application is allowed with
Provisions considered
Judgment
as was alleged in the letter sent by the plaintiff-opposite party. To that extent, the order of the court below holding the petitioner liable for payment of rent both arrear and current under Section 15 of the BBC Act 2 could not have been faulted with. Unfortunately, the second aspect which was equally important and ought to have been examined before passing the order is as to whether the landlady- plaintiff-opposite party in this case had already been receiving the rent whether from the petitioner said to be proprietor of the Sharda Enterprises or from the firm Sharda Enterprises. It is the case of the petitioner before this Court that was not projected before the court below in the reply filed under Section 15 of the Act that regular payment of rent has been made by M/s Sharda Enterprises to the plaintiff-landlady and the same has been duly acknowledged by her in all the receipts of the postal authority on the money-order form. As a matter of fact, from the list of documents filed by the plaintiff- landlady in the court below soon after filing of her application under Section 15 of the BBC Act on 1.4.2006 would also go to show that she herself had filed photostat copy of money-order dated 14.5.2005 and its receipt dated 16.5.2005 as also receipts of February, March, May, June, July, August, September, October, November, December 2005 and February and March,
Operative part
2006. If all these documents were already received by the plaintiff-landlady, at least her that part of claim gets contradicted from her own document. In fact she cannot 3 claim a double payment one from the alleged proprietor of M/s Sharda Enterprises i.e. the petitioner and subsequently from M/s Sharda Enterprises. As a matter of fact, Mrs. Veena Rani Prasad, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has produced before this Court rent receipts in the form of money- order coupons which go to show that the plaintiff- landlady has been receiving payment of rent from M/s Sharda Enterprises right from October, 2002. As the aforementioned aspect, being purely a question of fact, has not been looked into by the court below while passing the impugned order, this Court is left with no option but to set aside the impugned order. Accordingly, this civil revision application is allowed with a direction to the court below to reconsider the prayer of the plaintiff-landlady under Section 15 of the BBC Act in the light of the materials on record or which may be brought on record to show that the plaintiff-landlady had already been receiving rent from M/s Sharda Enterprises and as such, was not entitled for payment of rent amount from the petitioner. In the event, the court below will find that the petitioner is not in a position to furnish proof of payment of rent of any particular period, it will pass a fresh order for payment of rent only of that period. 4 This Court would note that the eviction suit is of the year 2003 and therefore need to be disposed of expeditiously. In that view of the matter, the court below is also directed to dispose of the suit itself preferably within a period one year the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. With the aforementioned observations and direction, this application is allowed. Rsh (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.