SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2016 Supreme(All) 4076

ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Sudhir Agarwal, J.
B.N. Bhargava (since deceased and substituted by legal heir) - Appellant
Versus
6th Additional District Judge, Saharanpur and Others - Respondent
Writ A No. 30712 of 2006
Decided On : 23-09-2016

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: T.B. Pandey
For the Respondent: SC, Ajay Kumar Sharma, I.P. Singh

The central legal point established in the judgment is the importance of accurately describing the disputed property in a landlord's writ petition.

Headnote:

landlord's Writ petition - Ejectment from property, recovery of arrears of rent - Act 13/1972, Section 20(4), Section 16-02-90 - The court discussed the issues related to default in payment of rent, entitlement to benefit from Act 13/1972, legality of notice, subletting of disputed property, and material alteration in the disputed property. The court referred to the plaintiff's admission in another suit to establish that the disputed property was not properly described, leading to the decision in favor of the defendants.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner filed a Small Cause Suit seeking ejectment from property and recovery of arrears of rent on the ground of subletting and material alteration reducing the value of the property. The trial court formulated several issues related to rent default, entitlement to benefit from a specific act, legality of notice, subletting, and material alteration.

Finding of the Court:

The trial court found issues related to subletting and material alteration in favor of the defendants based on the plaintiff's admission in another suit, and the revisional court upheld the decision.

Issues: The issues included rent default, entitlement to benefit from a specific act, legality of notice, subletting, material alteration, and relief.

Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the plaintiff's admission in another suit, which established that the disputed property was not properly described, leading to the decision in favor of the defendants.

Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ petition, as the findings of facts by both the trial court and the revisional court were not shown to be perverse or contrary to the record.

JUDGMENT

Sudhir Agarwal, J. -- Pursuant to order of date passed on Restoration Application, the writ petition is restored to its original number.

2. As requested and agreed by learned Counsels for parties, I proceed to hear and decide this matter finally.

3. Heard learned counsel for petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for respondents and perused the record.

4. This is landlord's Writ petition. Petitioner filed Small Cause Suit No. 52 of 1999 seeking ejectment from property in dispute, disclosed at bottom of plaint and recovery of arrears of rent on the ground of subletting and material alteration reducing value of property.

5. Suit was contested by defendants. Trial Court formulated following issues:

       %hnd1%^^1- D;k izfroknhx.k }kjk fdjk;s dh vnk;xh esa pwd dh x;h\^^%hnd2%

"1. Whether the defendants have defaulted in payment of rent?"

%hnd1%^^2- D;k izfroknhx.k /kkjk 20 ¼4½ vf/kfu;e la[;k 13@1972 dk ykHk ikus ds vf/kdkjh gS\^^%hnd2%

"2. Whether the defendants are entitled to benefit from section 20 (4) of Act 13/1972?"

%hnd1%^^3- D;k uksfVl fnukafdr 16-02-90 voS/kkfud gS\^^%hnd2%

"3. Whether the notice dated 16.02.1990 is illegal?"

       %hnd1%^^4- D;k izfroknhx.k ds }kjk fookfnr lEifRr esa f'kdeh fdjk;snkj fcuk btktr oknh crk;k x;k gS\^^%hnd2%

"4. Whether the defendants have let the disputed property to a sub-tenant without permission of the plaintiff?"

%hnd1%^^5- D;k izfroknhx.k }kjk fcuk btktr oknh fookfnr lEifRr esa eSfVfj;y vkYVsª'ku fd;k x;k gS\^^%hnd2%

"5. Whether the defendants have effected material alteration in the disputed property without permission of the plaintiff?"

       %hnd1%^^6- vuqrks"k\**%hnd2%
    

        "6. Relief?"

(English Translation by Court)

6. Issues 4 and 5 both were answered against plaintiff-petitioner. While answering Issue no. 4, Trial Court referred to petitioner's own admission in another Suit No. 55 of 1981 which shows that boundary mentioned in the plaint was not correctly described and therefore, disputed property was not described properly. The finding of Trial Court read as under:

%hnd1%^^tks iwoZ esa nkok 55 @81 oknh }kjk ;ksftr fd;k x;k gS mlds okn i= dh udy 64x i=koyh ij miyC/k gS mlesa lEifRr uxjikfydk la[;k 2@880@37 esa lR;iky uked O;fDr dks f'kdeh fdjk;snkj crkuk vkjksfir fd;k x;k gS vkSj mDr lEifRr esa ,d pcwrjk Vhu iks'k e; lgu o dksBjh nqdku ds ihNs gksuk crk;k x;k FkkA lEifRr dk tks fooj.k fn;k x;k Fkk mlesa iwjc dh vksj [kkyh txg] if'pe esa dksVZ jksM] mRrj esa xyh vke vkSj nf{k.k esa izkbZosV jkLrk vafdr fd;k x;k FkkA tcfd okn i= ds fooj.k ds vuqlkj iwjc esa fookfnr lEifRr vafdr gksuh pkfg;s FkkA vius jsIyhds'ku ds iSjk&6 esa oknh us ;g Lohdkj fd;k gS fd fookfnr tk;nkn dh rQlhy ds laca/k esa y?kqokn la[;k 55@81 esa mlds vf/koDrk dks xyrh yx x;h Fkh vkSj mlus =qfVo'k 2@880@37 ds ihNs dksBjh esa lR;iky uked O;fDr dks f'kdeh fdjk;snkj gksuk vafdr dj fn;k Fkk vkSj blls ;g ckr lekIr ugha gks tkrh fd lEifRr uxjikfydk uEcj 2@880@36 mDr lEifRr ds ihNs fLFkr ugha gS vkSj izfroknhx.k dh fdjk;snkjh esa ugha gSA vius okn i= ds lkFk dksbZ uD'kk utjh fookfnr lEifRr dk oknh dh vksj ls is'k ugha fd;k x;k gSA bu ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa ;g ckr Li"V gks tkrh gS fd fookfnr lEifRr ds lEcU/k esa tks fooj.k fn;k x;k gS og vLi"V gS vkSj okn i= bl lEcU/k esa osx gSA bl ckr dks fl) djus dh ftEesnkjh oknh dh gS D;k&2 vkSj fdruh&2 lEifRr ftldks uxjikfydk la[;k&2@880@35 o 36 izfroknhx.k dh fdjk;snkjh esa fdjk;kuke 78x ds vuqlkj nh x;h vkSj ml lEifRr dh lhek;sa D;k gSaA oknh ;g ckr fl) djus esa vlQy jgk gS fd ftl Hkkx ij f'kdeh fdjk;snkj clkuk tkuk crk;k tkrk gS vFkok esVhfj;y vkYVs~'ku fd;k tkuk vkjksfir fd;k x;k gS og lEifRr nqdku uEcj 2@880@36 dk Hkkx gksA dsoy okn la[;k 55@81 esa izfroknh la[;k 2 dfFkr f'kdeh fdjk;snkj ds ,Meh'ku ds vk/kkj ij ;g ckr lkfcr ugha ekuh tk ldrh fd ftl txg dfFkr lR;iky ukd O;fDr dkfct gS og izfroknhx.k dh fdjk;snkjh okyh lEifRr gS D;ksafd izLrqr dsl esa mDr lR;iky f'kdeh fdjk;snkj dks] ftldh ,Meh'ku dk ykHk oknh mBkuk pkgrk gS] i{kdkj ugha cuk;k x;k gSA fu"d"kZr;k ;g ck






Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top