Back
[2006(1) ADJ 636 (All)]
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
BEFORE : VIKRAM NATH, J.
RAM CHANDER ...Petitioner
Versus
VIth ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE,
VARANASI AND OTHERS .....Opp. Parties
(Civil Misc. Writ Petition Nos. 16409 of 1996, 29225 of 1999 and 43295 of 2001, decided on 1st December, 2005)
(B) Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887—Section 23—Power under—Exercise of—Discretionary. [Para 18]
(C) Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887—Section 25—Landlord and tenant relationship—Finding of—Tenant in arrears of rent—Concurrent findings of fact—Does not suffer from any error of law—No interference warranted. [Para 20]
(D) Lis pendens—Doctrine of—When come into play. [Transfer of Property Act, 1882—Section 52]. [Para 24]
(E) Constitution of India, 1950—Article 226—Writ petition—Decision on merits—In view of subsequent development, petition has become infructuous having lost its efficacy—Appropriate to dismiss the same. [Para 25]
Honble Vikram Nath, J.—Writ Petition No. 16409 of 1996 is directed against the judgment and order dated 2-11-1994 (Annexure-2 to the petition) and 12-4-1996 (Annexure-1 to the petition) whereby the Small Causes Suit No. 157 of 1989 filed by Smt. Geeta Devi respondent No. 3 for recovery of arrears of rent and ejectment of the petitioner has been decreed and the Civil Rent Revision No. 249 of 1994, Ram Chandra Lal v.Smt. Geeta Devi against the judgment dated 2-11-1994 has been dismissed.
2. Writ Petition No. 29225 of 1999, has been filed for quashing the orders dated 4-6-1999 (Annexure-1 to the petition) and 15-3-1999 (Annexure-2 to the petition) whereby the Rent Control and Eviction Officer allowed the release application of Smt. Geeta Devi under section 16(1)(b) of U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the 1972 Act) and rejected the application of release filed by the petitioner Ram Chandra and further the revision against the same filed by Sri Ram Chandra has also been dismissed.
3. Writ Petition No. 43295 of 2001 has been filed for quashing the order dated 20-9-2001 passed by IInd Addl. District Judge, Varanasi (Annexure-1 to the petition) whereby the ex-parte decree in Original Suit No. 639 of 1980, dated 25-10-1995 was set aside and the trial Court was directed to decide the suit on merits after affording opportunity to both the parties.
4. The contesting parties in all the three writ petitions are only Ram Chandra Lal the petitioner in all the three petitions and Smt. Geeta Devi (one of the respondent in all three petitions). Rest of the parties even though different in all the three petitions but are not contesting.
5. The facts giving rise to all the three writ petitions are also inter connected and therefore, these petitions are being decided together.
6. The dispute relates to house No. A-13/127 Muhalla Ghasiari Tola, Adampur, Varanasi. Ram Chandra Lal petitioner is alleged to be the tenant of the ground floor room and part of the upper story portion of the said house. The original owner and landlord of the house in dispute was Sita Ram. Vide sale deed dated 17-11-1970 the house in dispute was purchased by Smt. Saraswati Devi wife of Shyam Sundar. It is not in dispute that Shyam Sundar and petitioner Ram Chandra Lal are real brothers being sons of late Shiv Nandan. Smt. Saraswati Devi by means of sale deed dated 7-6-1977 sold the house in dispute in favour of Smt. Kalawati Devi wife of Kashi Nath Yadav.
7. Ram Chandra Lal petitioner filed Original Suit No. 639 of 1980, claiming relief of declaration to the extent that he was owner of half share in the house in dispute as the purchase made on 17-11-1970 had been obtained by him as Karta of the Family in the name of his brother’s wife (Smt. Saraswati Devi). In the said suit Smt. Saraswati Devi, Shyam Sundar, Smt. Kalawati Devi and Kashi Nath Yadav were impleaded as defendants.
8. During the pendency of the said suit Smt. Kalawati Devi executed a sale deed on 18-5-1987 in favour of Smt. Geeta Devi the contesting respondent in all the petitions. After having purchased the house in dispute Smt. Geeta Devi filed Small Causes Suit No. 157 of 1989 against Ram Chandra Lal for recovery of arrears of rent and ejectment. After contest by Ram Chandra Lal, the trial Court decreed the suit of Smt. Geeta Devi for recovery of arrears of rent and ejectment vide judgment dated 2-11-1994. Against the same, Ram Chandra Lal filed revision under Section 25 of Provincial Small Causes Court Act, 1887 (hereinafter referred to as 1887 Act), which was registered as Rent Revision No. 249 of 1994. The revisional Court vide judgment dated 12-4-1996 dismissed the revision of the petitioner and affirmed the decree for arrears of rent and ejectment. Aggrieved by the same the first writ petition being Writ Petition No. 16409 of 1996 was filed.
9. Despite the sale deed in favour of Smt. Geeta Devi and suit for arrears of rent and ejectment
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
