High Court · 2025

tenant of one Shri P.K. Sinha from whom he claims to have taken the premises on rent some time in the year 2013. Subsequently, it is stated that Shri P.K. Sinha had executed an agreement to sell in his favour. However, later on it transpired that Shri P.K. Sinha had sold the property in question by virtue of a sale deed in favour of the opposite party herein sometime in the year 2008. The suit was filed for arrears of rent and ejectment by the opposite party herein in the year 2016. The said suit was decreed vide order dated 12.09.2019 and a decree for arrears of rent and ejectment was passed in favour of the opposite party. However, the same was subject matter of Revision No.98 of 2019. The said revision was finally disposed of vide judgement dated 05.02.2020. The matter was remanded for adjudication afresh on the question of relationship of the land lord and the tenant. On remand, the order impugned came to be passed. After remand as many as six points of determination were made by the JSC Court. While determining issue Nos.1 and 2 with regard to the relationship of the land lord and the tenant and whether any independent rights had flown in favour of the revisionist by virtue of an agreement to sell in his favour dated 01.10.2014. The JSC Court appreciated the evidence on record including the own admission of the revisionist accepting relationship of the land lord and the tenant. The Court relied upon the averments made in the rejoinder affidavit filed by the petitioner himself in Writ Petition No.2987 of 2018, wherein the revisionist had claimed that he is not being permitted to take the electricity connection, despite, the revisionist being in possession as a tenant. The JSC Court also noticed the contention of the revisionist in Contempt Petition No.2116 of 2017. The JSC Court also noticed, the application filed by the revisionist under Order 15 Rule 5 of the CPC, wherein he had sought the permission to deposit the amounts of rent claiming himself to the tenant. Based upon the appreciation of the said evidence, a finding was returned that the relationship of the land lord and the tenant existed in between the parties. With regard to service of notice, a finding was returned against the revisionist. While determining the arrears of rent, a finding was returned that the revisionist was guilty of not paying the rent and thus there was a default committed by him. Based upon the said, the suit in question was decreed.

4. The contention of learned counsel for the revisionist is that the JSC court has not considered the entire evidence on record while arriving at a finding with regard to the relationship of the land lord and the tenant in between the parties.

5. My attention is drawn to the statement of the opposite party as well as the observations made in the SCC Revision No.98 of 2019 decided on 05.02.2020. In light of the said, he argues that the revision deserves to be allowed.

6. It is also essential to notice that this Court while entertaining the revision had passed a detailed order on 13.07.2022, staying the execution subject to the revisionist depositing the entire decreetal amount within a period of one month and further continuing to pay Rs.15,000/- per month by 7th day of each succeeding month. The revisionist has admittedly not paid the monthly rent despite having a conditional order.

7. Learned counsel for the revisionist argues that the revisionist is now ready and willing to pay the rent on a per month basis, which had been approved by virtue of the order dated

13.07.2022.

8. Learned counsel for the opposite party, on the other hand, justifies the impugned order by arguing that a finding of fact has been recorded and the revisional power cannot be exercised unless the power exercised by the JSC Court is found to be perverse and illegal. He thus, argues that the revision is liable to be dismissed. More so, keeping in view the conduct of the revisionist, who has not even deposited the monthly the rent, despite the order passed by this Court.

9. Considering the submissions made at the Bar, the JSC Court in the impugned judgement has extensively relied upon the evidence on record including the admission of the revisionist with regard to his tenancy. The revisionist has availed the benefit of getting an electricity connection, depicting himself to be the tenant. The other admissions of the revisionist have also been taken into account. The revisionist has taken the benefit as was approved in favour of the tenant on the basis of his admission and has even failed to deposit the monthly rent despite there being an order passed by this Court. There is no error, in the manner in which the decision has been rendered or an error warranting interference in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction.

10. Accordingly, the revision is dismissed with direction to executing court to execute the decree within a period of one month from today and to send a report to this Court with regard to the execution through Senior Registrar of this Court within a period of four weeks.

11. The Senior Registrar is directed to communicate this order to the executing court to execute the decree and to send a report. Order Date :- 16.7.2025 Ashutosh ASHUTOSH PANDEY ASHUTOSH PANDEY ASHUTOSH PANDEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Lucknow Bench Lucknow Bench

tenant of one Shri P.K. Sinha from whom he claims to have taken the premises on rent some time in the year 2013. Subsequently, it is stated that Shri P.K. Sinha had executed an agreement to sell in his favour. However, later on it transpired that Shri P.K. Sinha had sold the property in question by virtue of a sale deed in favour of the opposite party herein sometime in the year 2008. The suit was filed for arrears of rent and ejectment by the opposite party herein in the year 2016. The said suit was decreed vide order dated 12.09.2019 and a decree for arrears of rent and ejectment was passed in favour of the opposite party. However, the same was subject matter of Revision No.98 of 2019. The said revision was finally disposed of vide judgement dated 05.02.2020. The matter was remanded for adjudication afresh on the question of relationship of the land lord and the tenant. On remand, the order impugned came to be passed. After remand as many as six points of determination were made by the JSC Court. While determining issue Nos.1 and 2 with regard to the relationship of the land lord and the tenant and whether any independent rights had flown in favour of the revisionist by virtue of an agreement to sell in his favour dated 01.10.2014. The JSC Court appreciated the evidence on record including the own admission of the revisionist accepting relationship of the land lord and the tenant. The Court relied upon the averments made in the rejoinder affidavit filed by the petitioner himself in Writ Petition No.2987 of 2018, wherein the revisionist had claimed that he is not being permitted to take the electricity connection, despite, the revisionist being in possession as a tenant. The JSC Court also noticed the contention of the revisionist in Contempt Petition No.2116 of 2017. The JSC Court also noticed, the application filed by the revisionist under Order 15 Rule 5 of the CPC, wherein he had sought the permission to deposit the amounts of rent claiming himself to the tenant. Based upon the appreciation of the said evidence, a finding was returned that the relationship of the land lord and the tenant existed in between the parties. With regard to service of notice, a finding was returned against the revisionist. While determining the arrears of rent, a finding was returned that the revisionist was guilty of not paying the rent and thus there was a default committed by him. Based upon the said, the suit in question was decreed.

4. The contention of learned counsel for the revisionist is that the JSC court has not considered the entire evidence on record while arriving at a finding with regard to the relationship of the land lord and the tenant in between the parties.

5. My attention is drawn to the statement of the opposite party as well as the observations made in the SCC Revision No.98 of 2019 decided on 05.02.2020. In light of the said, he argues that the revision deserves to be allowed.

6. It is also essential to notice that this Court while entertaining the revision had passed a detailed order on 13.07.2022, staying the execution subject to the revisionist depositing the entire decreetal amount within a period of one month and further continuing to pay Rs.15,000/- per month by 7th day of each succeeding month. The revisionist has admittedly not paid the monthly rent despite having a conditional order.

7. Learned counsel for the revisionist argues that the revisionist is now ready and willing to pay the rent on a per month basis, which had been approved by virtue of the order dated

13.07.2022.

8. Learned counsel for the opposite party, on the other hand, justifies the impugned order by arguing that a finding of fact has been recorded and the revisional power cannot be exercised unless the power exercised by the JSC Court is found to be perverse and illegal. He thus, argues that the revision is liable to be dismissed. More so, keeping in view the conduct of the revisionist, who has not even deposited the monthly the rent, despite the order passed by this Court.

9. Considering the submissions made at the Bar, the JSC Court in the impugned judgement has extensively relied upon the evidence on record including the admission of the revisionist with regard to his tenancy. The revisionist has availed the benefit of getting an electricity connection, depicting himself to be the tenant. The other admissions of the revisionist have also been taken into account. The revisionist has taken the benefit as was approved in favour of the tenant on the basis of his admission and has even failed to deposit the monthly rent despite there being an order passed by this Court. There is no error, in the manner in which the decision has been rendered or an error warranting interference in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction.

10. Accordingly, the revision is dismissed with direction to executing court to execute the decree within a period of one month from today and to send a report to this Court with regard to the execution through Senior Registrar of this Court within a period of four weeks.

11. The Senior Registrar is directed to communicate this order to the executing court to execute the decree and to send a report. Order Date :- 16.7.2025 Ashutosh ASHUTOSH PANDEY ASHUTOSH PANDEY ASHUTOSH PANDEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Lucknow Bench Lucknow Bench