Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
Subhash Vidyarthi, J.
Santosh Singh - Revisionist
Versus
Smt. Suman Shukla And Anr. – Opposite Parties
S.C.C. REVISION No. - 1 of 2023
Decided On : 19-09-2024
(A) Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887 - Sections 15 and 23 - Execution proceedings - The Small Cause Court has jurisdiction to entertain eviction suits and incidental questions of title. The court upheld the ownership claim of the opposite party based on a registered sale deed, setting aside the ex-parte decree. (Paras 10, 15, 24)
(B) Jurisdiction - The Small Cause Court can decide incidental questions of title in eviction proceedings, but such findings do not operate as res judicata in subsequent suits. (Paras 22, 23)
Facts of the case:
The revision-petitioner sought to set aside a judgment allowing the opposite party's claim of ownership based on a sale deed, which led to the setting aside of an ex-parte eviction decree. (Paras 1, 8)
Findings of Court:
The Small Cause Court acted within its jurisdiction in adjudicating the ownership claim, and the ex-parte decree was rightly set aside. (Paras 20, 25)
Issues: Whether the Small Cause Court had jurisdiction to decide the ownership claim and the validity of the ex-parte decree. (Paras 9, 17)
Ratio Decidendi: The Small Cause Court can decide incidental questions of title in eviction proceedings, but such findings do not preclude further adjudication in a competent civil court. (Paras 22, 24)
Result: Revision dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
Subhash Vidyarthi, J.
1. By means of the instant revision filed under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Court Act, 1887, the revision-petitioner has prayed for setting aside the judgment and an order dated 21.05.2022 passed by the learned Additional District Judge/Special Judge, P.C. Act, Court no. 3, Lucknow in Miscellaneous Case No. 39-C of 2013, which was registered upon an application under Order XXI Rules 97, 98, 99 read with 101 of Civil Procedure Code filed in Execution Case No. 01 of 2013, which execution case was filed for execution of the ejectment decree passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Court no. 13, Lucknow in SCC Suit No. 72 of 2010.
2. The aforesaid SCC Suit was filed by the revision-petitioner against the opposite party no. 2 -Santosh Shukla pleading that the petitioner was the owner and landlord of House 294/90 situated at Mohalla Bazar Khala, Lucknow. The defendant was his tenant in respect of one of the shops situated on the ground floor of the building at Rs 3,000/-per month rent. The defendant did not pay rent to the plaintiff-revisionist after April, 2009 and he was in arrears of rent since 01.05.2009. On 11.06.2010, the plaintiff had sent a notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act which was served upon the defendant but the defendant did not pay rent of the premises to the plaintiff and he did not vacate the shop in his tenancy. As there was a typographical error in the notice dated 11.06.2010, inasmuch instead of a single door shop, a two door shop was wrongly been mentioned in the notice, the plaintiff sent another notice dated 12.07.2010. The defendant sent a reply dated 03.07.2010 denying the averments made in the plaintiff’s notice.
3. The trial court has recorded in the judgment and order dated 12.04.2013 that the summons of the Suit was deemed to be sufficient on 03.02.2012 as the defendant had declined to receive the notice and on 30.03.2012 the Suit was ordered to proceed ex-parte. The trial court has made a narration of the documentary evidence filed by the plaintiff and his affidavit filed in evidence. The trial court reproduced the plaint averments and noted that in the reply dated 03.07.3010 sent in response to the notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, the defendant had denied the relationship of landlord and tenant between him and the plaintiff. The trial court mentioned that the plaintiff had filed counterfoils of receipts for payment of rent dated 01.07.2008, 01.08.2008, 03.09.2008, 02.01.2009, 02.02.2009, 04.03.2009 and 01.04.2009 alongwith a list of documents filed with the plaint and held that the defendant has not filed any evidence to rebut the plaintiff’s evidence and, therefore, the plaintiff’s case was proved ex-parte. Accordingly, the plaintiff’s suit was decreed.
4. The opposite party filed an application under Order IX Rule 13 C.P.C., which was registered as Miscellaneous Case No. 28-C of 2013. However, it was dismissed by means of an order dated 07.10.2016 wherein it is recorded that the applicant’s counsel stated that he did not want to press the application.
5. The plaintiff-revisionist filed Execution Case No. 1 of 2023 for execution of the decree dated 12.04.2013 passed in S.C.C. Suit No. 72 of 2010.
6. The opposite party no. 1 -Suman Shukla filed an application under Order XXI Rules 97, 98, 99 read with 101 C.P.C. in Execution Case No. 1 of 2023. This application was registered as Miscellaneous Case No. 39-C of 2013. The opposite party no. 1 stated in the application that she has purchased the shop in question from Shyam Lal son of Sunder Lal through a sale deed dated 14.03.2012, which was registered in the office of Sub Registrar-V, Lucknow in Book No. 1, Volume 7518 at pages from 197 to 234 at Serial No. 2797. House No. 294/90 Mohalla Bazar Khala is a big house, a portion whereof has been sold by Shyam Lal to opposite party no. 1. Shyam Lal has sold another portion of the house to Sayeed Ahmad and Smt. Radha
The Small Cause Court can adjudicate incidental title issues in eviction proceedings, but such findings do not operate as res judicata in subsequent civil suits.
The executing court is competent to consider all questions raised by the persons offering obstruction against execution of the decree and pass appropriate order, which is to be treated as a decree. T....
The Small Cause Court may decide incidental title issues in landlord-tenant disputes, but it is not obligated to refer cases to regular courts unless substantial evidence of title is presented.
The judgment emphasized the requirement for the court to adjudicate all questions of right, title, and possession in the property claimed by the objector under Order XXI Rule 97, and clarified the di....
The court emphasized that timely payment of rent is essential in eviction suits, and striking out a defense should be exercised with discretion, especially when landlord-tenant relationships are disp....
Petitioner was having tenancy rights and accordingly, he raised objection before the Executing Court to decide his right of tenancy, therefore, it is necessary for him to produce certain documentary ....
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
