Back
2020 Supreme(All) 1192
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD (LUCKNOW BENCH)
Rajan Roy, J.
Mukesh Kumar Jindal - Appellants
Vs.
Keshav Kumar Sahu - Respondent
S.C.C. Revision No. 98 of 2019
Decided On : 05-02-2020
For the Appellant : Pritish Kumar and Shantanu Gupta
For the Respondents: Vidhya Dhar Upadhyay
The central legal point established in the judgment is the necessity to establish the landlord-tenant relationship for eviction cases, as highlighted in the decision of the Supreme Court.
Headnote:
SCC Revision - Landlord-tenant relationship - Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887, Section 25 - Summary of the acts and sections referenced and discussed by the court: The court discussed the existence of landlord-tenant relationship in the context of section 15 of the Act, 1887, read with Schedule 2, Article 4 as applicable in the State of U.P., and section 7 and Order (L) of the Code of Civil Procedure. The court also referred to the decision of Supreme Court reported in 1995 (6) SCC 580; Dr Ranbir Singh v. Asharfi Lal, wherein for eviction in such cases landlord-tenant relationship has necessarily to be established and question of title is not germane, though it can be seen incidentally.
Fact of the Case:
The suit was for arrears of rent, ejectment, and damages filed by the opposite party against the revisionist based on the alleged admission of the defendant regarding the landlord-tenant relationship.
Finding of the Court:
The SCC Court found that the defendant was not in possession of the suit property prior to 2014 and that the alleged admission of the defendant about the existence of landlord-tenant relationship led to the inference that the tenancy got transferred in favor of the plaintiff, thus decreeing the suit in favor of the plaintiff.
Issues: The issues included the existence of landlord-tenant relationship, the validity of the alleged admission of tenancy, and the jurisdiction of the SCC Court.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the interpretation of the landlord-tenant relationship, the transfer of tenancy, and the jurisdiction of the SCC Court as per the relevant legal provisions.
Final Decision: The impugned judgment was set aside, and the SCC Suit No. 1 of 2017 was ordered to be proceeded afresh by the SCC Court, granting an opportunity to both parties to lead relevant evidence. The matter was to be concluded within two months.
JUDGMENT :
Rajan Roy, J.
1. Heard.
2. This is a SCC Revision under section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887 challenging the judgment dated 12.9.2019 passed by the SCC Court in SCC Case No. 1 of 2017. The suit was for arrears of rent, ejectment and damages and had been filed by the opposite party against the revisionist.
3. The first and foremost issue which was to be seen by the SCC Court is the existence of landlord tenant (lessor-lessee) relationship between the plaintiff Sri Sahu and the defendant Sri Jindal, only then it would have jurisdiction in the matter in view of section 15 of the Act, 1887 read with Schedule 2, Article 4 as applicable in the State of U.P. read with section 7 and Order (L) of the Code of Civil Procedure.
4. Point No. 1 determined by the SCC Court was with regard to landlord-tenant relationship and point No. 2 was with regard to the alleged admission of the defendant who is in possession of premises in question based on an agreement to sale between erstwhile owner Sri P.K. Sinha and him dated 1.10.2014.
5. Before proceeding further to consider the judgment of the SCC Court in the light of the provisions contained in section 25 of the Act, 1887 as to whether it is in accordance with law or not, it is worthwhile to mention the facts of case in brief.
6. It is an undisputed fact that Sri P.K. Sinha, the erstwhile owner of the premises in question sold of the entire property bearing No. B-70, situated at Nirala Nagar, Lucknow, ad-measuring 9,600 Square Feet in favour of the plaintiff-opposite party herein, Sri Keshav Kumar Sahu on 15.11.2008. However, out of the aforesaid, an area of 2,400 Square Feet was not handed over to the vendee, Sri Sahu. According to the defendant a tenancy was created by Sri P.K. Sinha with him sometime in 2013, although in one of the writ petitions filed before the High Court it was mentioned as having been created in 2010. Thereafter, on 1.10.2014 it is said that Sri P.K. Sinha entered into a registered agreement to sale in respect of the 2,400 Square Feet, which, though it was part of the sale-deed executed by him in favour of Sri Keshav Kumar Sahu, but its possession was not handed over to him. The said agreement to sale contained a specific recital that possession of the property was not being handed over to Sri Mukesh Kumar Jindal (Revisionist herein) and the same would be handed over to him on execution of the sale-deed. After execution of the aforesaid agreement to sale an F.I.R. was lodged by Sri Keshav Sahu alleging therein that fraudulently Sri P.K. Sinha had executed an agreement to sale in favour of Sri Mukesh Kumar Jindal. This F.I.R. was lodged on 20.2.2015. The said F.I.R. was challenged by the revisionist herein Sri Mukesh Kumar Jindal before this Court by means of Writ Petition No. 687 (M/B) of 2016. It is said that in the said writ petition, revisionist herein admitted the relationship of landlord and tenant with Sri P.K. Sinha and also the transfer of ownership of the premises in favour of Sri Keshav Sahu.
7. On 6.10.2016 the revisionist Sri Jindal herein filed a suit for permanent injunction against Sri P.K. Sinha, Sri Keshav Sahu and another, which is still pending and there is no temporary injunction has been granted in the said suit in favour of the revisionist. Prior to this, that is on 13.9.2016, Sri P.K. Sinha had filed a suit for cancellation of the registered agreement to sale dated 1.10.2014 against the revisionist, which is still pending.
8. It is stated by the opposite party that in view of the admission of landlord-tenant relationship by the revisionist with Sri P.K. Sinha, the erstwhile owner in Writ Petition No. 687 (M/B) of 2016 and in view of the statement of the revisionist in the aforesaid writ petition and in the suit for injunction that he had paid rent to Sri P.K. Sinha till January, 2016, a notice was issued to him by Sri Keshav Shau on 18.11.2016 for arrears of rent w.e.f. February, 2016, determining the tenancy and asking him t
