Back
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Anjani Kumar Mishra, J.
Munni Lal Gupta - Appellant
Versus
Incharge District Judge , Azamgarh and Another - Respondent
Writ - A No. 53287 of 2016
Decided On : 19-12-2016
Locus - Civil Procedure - Section 92 CPC - Bengal, Agra and Assam Civil Court in 1987 - General Rules Civil - Rule 89-B - The court discussed the locus of the plaintiff in suits for arrears of rent, eviction, and damages, and the jurisdiction of the Incharge District Judge in deciding revisions.
Fact of the Case:
The respondent filed three suits against the petitioner for arrears of rent, eviction, and damages. The petitioner filed applications alleging that the plaintiff had no locus to maintain the suits as the shops were trust property. The Trial Court dismissed the applications, and the petitioner filed revisions which were also dismissed. The petitioner then filed a writ petition challenging the orders.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the order appointing a receiver, which was the basis of the petitioner's application, had been stayed by the High Court, and therefore, the application was filed only to delay the proceedings. The court also found that the Incharge District Judge had jurisdiction to decide the revisions at the stage of admission.
Issues: The issues involved the locus of the plaintiff in the suits and the jurisdiction of the Incharge District Judge in deciding revisions.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the order appointing a receiver, which was the basis of the petitioner's application, had been stayed by the High Court, and therefore, the application was filed only to delay the proceedings. The court also held that the Incharge District Judge had jurisdiction to decide the revisions at the stage of admission.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed.
Anjani Kumar Mishra, J.
Heard Shri Govind Krishna, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Kamal Narain Rai for the respondent no.3.
2. The instant writ petition arises out of three suits for arrears of rent, eviction and damages filed by the respondent no.3 against the petitioner for his eviction from three shops let out to him.
3. In these suits, three separate applications in each suit, being application Nos. 136-Ga (2) were filed alleging that the plaintiff had no locus to maintain the suits. These shops are trust property. The suits had been filed in personal capacity. A case, under Section 92 CPC for appointment of a receiver to the property in dispute belonging to a Trust had been allowed vide order dated 11.04.2016. In view of the said order, the plaintiff has no locus to prosecute the suit against the petitioner-tenant.
4. The Trial Court by order dated 26.05.2016 dismissed these identical applications filed in the three suits, being Suit Nos. 9, 10 and 11 of 1999.
5. Aggrieved, the petitioner preferred three revisions. These three SCC Revisions have been dismissed by a common order dated 01.09.2016. Hence this writ petition.
6. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that in view of the order dated 11.04.2016 passed in proceedings, under Section 92 CPC, whereby a receiver was appointed, the plaintiff opposite party ceased to have locus to prosecute the suit. The orders impugned therefore are liable to be set aside.
7. The second contention raised is that the revisional order dated 01.08.2016 has been passed by Incharge District Judge, Azamgarh. The matter not being an urgent matter, the same could not have been heard and decided by him. In support of this contention, reliance has been place upon the provisions contained in the Bengal, Agra and Assam Civil Court in 1987 as also the General Rules Civil, especially Rule 89-B, thereof.
8. It is submitted that an Incharge District Judge can exercise jurisdiction for disposal of urgent applications and may also deal with routine matters, but the Incharge District Judge did not have jurisdiction to hear and decide the revisions finally.
9. Shri K.N. Rai, counsel for the plaintiff-respondent has submitted that the proceedings, where from the writ petition arises are summary proceedings for arrears of rent, eviction and damages instituted by the landlord against the tenant before the Judge Small Causes Court. These proceedings do not entail any decision on the question of title.
10. Besides, as observed in the impugned orders, in case any question of title is found to be involved the Court concerned has jurisdiction to direct the matter to be presented before the Court of competent jurisdiction. Even otherwise, such a SCC suit can be instituted by a landlord, who by definition is the person to whom rent is payable. There is no requirement that a landlord necessarily has to be the owner of the property in suit. Once the landlord-tenant relationship stands established, the question of title has no significance.
11. On the question that the impugned revisional order has been passed by the Incharge District Judge, it has been submitted that the matter came up for admission before the Incharge District Judge. At this stage, after hearing the parties, the order has been passed, dismissing the revision, finding it to be without substance. He submits that in case, the Incharge District Judge was competent to hear the matter on the question of admission and/ or grant of any interim order, he necessarily had the jurisdiction also to hold that the revision was not fit for admission. This is precisely what has been done in the instant case.
12. Moreover, no such issue of jurisdiction to hear and decide the revision had been raised on behalf of the petitioner before the revisional Court and this issue is now being raised because the revision has been found to be without merits and consequently dismissed.
13. On the merits, he has submitted that the petitioner h
AI
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
