Back
2003 Supreme(All) 2453
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
S. P. Mehrotra, J.
ARUN KUMAR SINGH - Appellant
Versus
DISTRICT JUDGE - Respondents
Civil Misc. Writ Petition 50341 Of 2003
Decided On : 11/12/2003
Sanjay Kumar
The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the term 'heirs' in relation to a tenant as defined in Section 3(a) of the Small Cause Court Act, 1887, and its application in determining the succession of tenancy rights under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956.
Headnote:
Writ Petition - Disputed Shop - Small Cause Court Act, 1887, Section 25 - The court discussed the succession of tenancy rights under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 and the interpretation of the term 'heirs' in relation to a tenant as defined in Section 3(a) of the Act. The court found that the petitioners could not inherit the tenancy right in the disputed shop during the lifetime of the son of the deceased tenant. The court concluded that the Writ Petition lacked merit and dismissed it.
Fact of the Case:
The dispute related to a shop in Kanpur, with the petitioners seeking relief from orders related to a judgment and decree passed in a suit for ejectment and material alterations in the disputed shop.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioners could not inherit the tenancy right in the disputed shop during the lifetime of the son of the deceased tenant.
Issues: The main issue was the interpretation of the term 'heirs' in relation to a tenant as defined in Section 3(a) of the Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the provisions of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 and the interpretation of the term 'heirs' in relation to a tenant as defined in Section 3(a) of the Act to determine the succession of tenancy rights.
Final Decision: The Writ Petition lacked merit and was dismissed.
( 1 ) THE present Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed, interalia, praying for quashing the order dated 14. 10. 2003 (Annexure No. 2 to the Writ Petition)passed by the learned Judge, Small Cause Court, Kanpur Nagar and the order dated 24. 10. 2003 (Annexure No. 1 to the Writ Petition) passed by the learned District Judge, Kanpur Nagar.
( 2 ) THE dispute relates to a shop situated in Premises No. 108/186, Sisamau Bazar, Kanpur, the details where of are given in the judgment and decree dated 8. 2. 1984 passed in S. C. C. Suit No. 92 of 1979 referred to herein-after. The said Shop has herein-after been referred to as the "disputed shop".
( 3 ) FROM a perusal of the allegations made in the Writ Petition and Annexures thereto, it appears that the respondent Nos. 3 to 6 herein filed a Suit for ejectment etc. , in respect of the disputed shop against the Late Jag Mohan, grandfather of the petitioners herein on the grounds of default in payment of rent and material alterations in the disputed shop. The said Suit was registered as s. C. C. Suit No. 92 of 1979.
( 4 ) BY the judgment and decree dated 8. 2. 1984, the said S. C. C. Suit No. 92 of 1979 was decreed.
( 5 ) THEREUPON, it appears that the said Jag Mohan filed a revision which was registered as S. C. C. Revision No. 47 of 1984.
( 6 ) BY the judgment and order dated 30. 4. 1993, the said S. C. C. Revision No. 47 of 1984 was allowed by the Revisional Court, and the said S. C. C. Suit No. 92 of 1979 was dismissed.
( 7 ) THEREAFTER, it appears that the respondent Nos. 3 to 6 herein filed a Writ Petition being Civil misc. Writ Petition No. 32756 of 1993.
( 8 ) BY the judgment dated 5. 4. 2002, this Court allowed the said Writ Petition No. 32756 of 1993 and quashed the said judgment and order dated 30. 4. 1993 passed in the said S. C. C. Revision No. 47 of 1984 and confirmed the said judgment and decree dated 8. 2. 1984 passed in the said S. C. C. Suit No. 92 of 1979.
( 9 ) COPY of the said judgment dated 5. 4. 2002 passed in the said Civil Misc. Writ Petition No, 32756 of 1993 has been filed as Annexure No. 3 to the Writ Petition.
( 10 ) IT further appears that the respondent Nos. 3 to 6 herein filed an Execution Application dated 31. 5. 2002 which was registered as Execution Case No. 4 of 2002. Copy of the said Execution Application dated 31. 5. 2002 has been filed as Annexure No. 4 to the Writ Petition.
( 11 ) IT further appears that the petitioners herein filed Objections under Section 47 of the Code of civil Procedure. The said Objections were rejected by the order dated 25th March, 2003. The petitioners herein thereafter, filed a revision which was registered as Revision No. 22 of 2003. The said Revision No. 22 of 2003 was also dismissed on 7. 4. 2003.
( 12 ) IT further appears that the petitioners herein again filed Objection/application (No. 4 Ga)dated 7. 10. 2003 under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure in the said Execution Case No. 4 of 2002. Copy of the said Objection/application (No. 4 Ga) dated 7. 10. 2003 has been filed as annexure No. 5 to the Writ Petition.
( 13 ) THE respondent Nos. 3 to 6 herein filed Reply dated 9. 10. 2003 against the said objection/application under Section 47 of Code of Civil Procedure filed on behalf of the petitioners herein.
( 14 ) COPY of the said Reply dated 9. 10. 2003 filed on behalf of the respondent Nos. 3 to 6 herein has been filed as Annexure No. 6 to the Writ Petition.
( 15 ) IT further appears that the petitioners herein filed an application (No. 10 Ga) dated 9. 10. 2003 under Order XXI, Rule 29 of the Code of Civil Procedure read with Section 151 of the Code of civil Procedure, interalia, praying for staying the execution of the said decree passed in the said s. C. C. Suit No. 92 of 1979 during the pendency of Suit No. 1139 of 2003. Copy of the said application (No. 10ga) dated 9. 10. 2003 under Order XXI, Rule 29 of the Code of Civil procedure read with Section 151 o
