Manni Lal Krishna Chandra Maurya And Another v. Revisionist(s) .....Opposite Party(s) Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Saryu Prasad Tiwari, Dwijendra Mishra, Prince Kumar
Case Details
1. Heard learned counsels for the parties on merits and perused the material brought on record.
2. The present revision has been filed by the revisionist under Section 25 of Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, challenging the judgment and order dated 09.02.2016, whereby a decree of arrears of rent and ejectment was passed against the revisionist.
3. The facts that emerges are that, a suit was filed by the respondent-landlord claiming that the revisionist was the tenant of the premises owned by the respondent and was running a cycle store in the name of 'Rahul Cycle Store', which was later closed. It was stated that the revisionist was the tenant at the rent of Rs. 300/- per month, but had failed to pay the rent as such, after notice the suit in question was filed. The said suit was defended by the revisionist by stating that, the property was in occupation of the predecessors 2 SCCR No. 43 of 2016 of the revisionist since prior to enforcement of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act and claimed his rights and it was also claimed that, the revisionist had constructed and, thus, was the owner in possession. It was also pleaded that, a suit was filed by the revisionist being Suit No. 500271 of 2007 prior to the institution of the S.C.C. proceedings by the respondent-landlord. In the said suit, the relief claimed was that the respondent be restrained from creating any obstructions in the possession of the revisionist. No suit for declaration was filed as is evident from the record, the respondent-landlord, objected to the said suit filed by the revisionist by pleading that the revisionist was the tenant and based upon the same pleadings, the S.C.C. suit was filed seeking a decree of rent and ejectment. After the exchange of pleadings, as many as eight points of determination were framed in between the parties by the trial court. The issue no.1 and 2 pertains to the ownership of the plaintiff to the suit or the defendant. The J.S.C. Court after analyzing the evidence improving the statement of P.W.-1 as well as the evidence on record, recorded a finding that, the respondent was the owner of the property in question, while deciding the issue no.3, based upon the evidence and the rent receipts filed, it was adjudicated that the revisionist was a tenant of the property in question. The other issues with regard to the applicability of the act and the same were also considered and decided against the revisionist. Challenging the said order, the present revision was filed.
4. The contention of learned counsel for the revisionist is that, a forged rent receipt was filed based upon which, the suit has been decreed. It is further argued that the revisionist was the owner of the property by virtue of his long standing possession of his ancestors on which he has raised constructions and, thus, the trial court has committed illegality in appreciating the evidence available on record.
5. It is further argued that on account of the eviction decree passed, the revisionist would suffer irreparable loss. It is further stated that after the revision was decided, the suit filed by the revisionist has also been dismissed sometimes in the year 2024 against which an appeal is filed being Appeal No. 01 of 2025 and is pending.
6. Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, justifies the order by arguing that the J.S.C. Court had considered the pleadings as well as the evidence, to record the findings, which have not been rebutted by any cogent 3 SCCR No. 43 of 2016 evidence even before this Court and, thus, the revision is liable to dismissed.
7. Considering the submissions made at the bar, perusal of the revision filed by the revisionists, makes it clear that there is not one ground pleaded by the revisionist that the rent receipt was either forged or fabricated. There is no ground whatsoever, to even allege that the evidence led by the plaintiff before the J.S.C.C. Court was misinterpreted.
8. Learned counsel for the revisionist at this stage, draws my attention towards Annexure No. R.A.-1 filed along with the rejoinder affidavit, which is the rent receipt, to argue that it does not bear the signature of the revisionist. In the rejoinder affidavit, it has also been stated that the grandfather of the revisionist entered into the land in dispute in the year 1950 raised a 'hut', it was also stated that on account of default in payment of electricity bill, recovery proceedings were also initiated against the revisionists, it has also been stated that the name of the revisionist' family appears in the electoral with the same address. In the light of the said, it is proposed to be argued that possession of the revisionist, as an owner was to be established. The said contention based upon, the averments contained in the rejoinder affidavit, merits rejection for reasons more than one, firstly, as no such ground has been taken in the revision before this Court and secondly, all the said documents, merely demonstrate the possession of the revisionist over the property, do not disclose the ownership status of the revisionist, as is being sought to be claimed.
9. For all reasons recorded above, there is no reason to interfere with the order passed by the Judge Small Causes Court in exercise of powers under 25 of Provincial Small Cause Courts Act.
10. The revision lacks merit and is, accordingly, dismissed. September 24, 2025 Praveen (Pankaj Bhatia,J.) PRAVEEN KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench
1. Heard learned counsels for the parties on merits and perused the material brought on record.
2. The present revision has been filed by the revisionist under Section 25 of Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, challenging the judgment and order dated 09.02.2016, whereby a decree of arrears of rent and ejectment was passed against the revisionist.
3. The facts that emerges are that, a suit was filed by the respondent-landlord claiming that the revisionist was the tenant of the premises owned by the respondent and was running a cycle store in the name of 'Rahul Cycle Store', which was later closed. It was stated that the revisionist was the tenant at the rent of Rs. 300/- per month, but had failed to pay the rent as such, after notice the suit in question was filed. The said suit was defended by the revisionist by stating that, the property was in occupation of the predecessors 2 SCCR No. 43 of 2016 of the revisionist since prior to enforcement of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act and claimed his rights and it was also claimed that, the revisionist had constructed and, thus, was the owner in possession. It was also pleaded that, a suit was filed by the revisionist being Suit No. 500271 of 2007 prior to the institution of the S.C.C. proceedings by the respondent-landlord. In the said suit, the relief claimed was that the respondent be restrained from creating any obstructions in the possession of the revisionist. No suit for declaration was filed as is evident from the record, the respondent-landlord, objected to the said suit filed by the revisionist by pleading that the revisionist was the tenant and based upon the same pleadings, the S.C.C. suit was filed seeking a decree of rent and ejectment. After the exchange of pleadings, as many as eight points of determination were framed in between the parties by the trial court. The issue no.1 and 2 pertains to the ownership of the plaintiff to the suit or the defendant. The J.S.C. Court after analyzing the evidence improving the statement of P.W.-1 as well as the evidence on record, recorded a finding that, the respondent was the owner of the property in question, while deciding the issue no.3, based upon the evidence and the rent receipts filed, it was adjudicated that the revisionist was a tenant of the property in question. The other issues with regard to the applicability of the act and the same were also considered and decided against the revisionist. Challenging the said order, the present revision was filed.
4. The contention of learned counsel for the revisionist is that, a forged rent receipt was filed based upon which, the suit has been decreed. It is further argued that the revisionist was the owner of the property by virtue of his long standing possession of his ancestors on which he has raised constructions and, thus, the trial court has committed illegality in appreciating the evidence available on record.
5. It is further argued that on account of the eviction decree passed, the revisionist would suffer irreparable loss. It is further stated that after the revision was decided, the suit filed by the revisionist has also been dismissed sometimes in the year 2024 against which an appeal is filed being Appeal No. 01 of 2025 and is pending.
6. Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, justifies the order by arguing that the J.S.C. Court had considered the pleadings as well as the evidence, to record the findings, which have not been rebutted by any cogent 3 SCCR No. 43 of 2016 evidence even before this Court and, thus, the revision is liable to dismissed.
7. Considering the submissions made at the bar, perusal of the revision filed by the revisionists, makes it clear that there is not one ground pleaded by the revisionist that the rent receipt was either forged or fabricated. There is no ground whatsoever, to even allege that the evidence led by the plaintiff before the J.S.C.C. Court was misinterpreted.
8. Learned counsel for the revisionist at this stage, draws my attention towards Annexure No. R.A.-1 filed along with the rejoinder affidavit, which is the rent receipt, to argue that it does not bear the signature of the revisionist. In the rejoinder affidavit, it has also been stated that the grandfather of the revisionist entered into the land in dispute in the year 1950 raised a 'hut', it was also stated that on account of default in payment of electricity bill, recovery proceedings were also initiated against the revisionists, it has also been stated that the name of the revisionist' family appears in the electoral with the same address. In the light of the said, it is proposed to be argued that possession of the revisionist, as an owner was to be established. The said contention based upon, the averments contained in the rejoinder affidavit, merits rejection for reasons more than one, firstly, as no such ground has been taken in the revision before this Court and secondly, all the said documents, merely demonstrate the possession of the revisionist over the property, do not disclose the ownership status of the revisionist, as is being sought to be claimed.
9. For all reasons recorded above, there is no reason to interfere with the order passed by the Judge Small Causes Court in exercise of powers under 25 of Provincial Small Cause Courts Act.
10. The revision lacks merit and is, accordingly, dismissed. September 24, 2025 Praveen (Pankaj Bhatia,J.) PRAVEEN KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench