Allahabad High Court
Dr. Alpana Shankar vs Pradeep Kumar Singhal on 30 April, 2012
Bench: Prakash Krishna
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 4
Case :- CIVIL REVISION No. - 195 of 2012
Petitioner :- Dr. Alpana Shankar
Respondent :- Pradeep Kumar Singhal
Petitioner Counsel :- Sanjiv Singh,Namwar Singh
Hon'ble Prakash Krishna,J.
Challenging the order dated 19.03.2012 passed by the First Additional District Judge in Small Cause Court Suit No. 7 of 2010, Pradeep Kumar Singhal vs. Dr. Alpana Shankar, the present revision has been preferred under Section 25 of Provincial Small Cause Court Act, 1887, by the defendant-tenant.
The trial court by the order under revision has directed the defendant/applicant who is admittedly tenant of the property in dispute to pay all the arrears of rent before the next date.
The relevant facts may be noticed in brief:
The aforesaid suit has been instituted for recovery of arrears of rent and ejectment of the defendant/applicant on the allegations that there is relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and the defendant-tenant has failed to pay the arrears of rent inspite of notice of demand and termination of tenancy. In the written statement, the defendant states that the plaintiff by concealing actual fact has got the rent agreement prepared which is not acceptable to him and, therefore, the plaintiff is not entitled to get any rent.
The suit is pending.
An application under Order 15 Rule 5 of the C.P.C. as amended in the State of U.P. was filed by the plaintiff-landlord for directing the defendant-tenant to pay arrears of rent. On the said application, the order under revision has been filed.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that there is no title-deed in favour of the plaintiff. He submits that there is agreement of sale in favour of the plaintiff which is dated 10th November, 1993. In pursuance of the said agreement of sale, no suit for specific performance of contract to sell was filed and therefore, the plaintiff is not entitled to recover any amount as arrears of rent from defendant-tenant. He further submits that the rent agreement between the parties which is dated 19th August, 2007 was obtained by concealing material of fact that the landlord is not the owner of the property in question. In this fact situation, submission is that the court below was not justified in passing the order under revision. Reliance has been placed by him on the decisions of the Apex Court in Chandramohan v. Sengottaiyan and others AIR 2000 SC 508; J.J. Lal Pvt. Ltd. and others v. M.R. Murali and another AIR 2002 SC 1061 and Denny and others v. Vilasini and others (2006) 9 SCC 164.
I have considered the aforesaid submission of the learned counsel for the applicant. Pointedly, a query was put to him who is landlord according to the defendant-tenant, applicant herein. Learned counsel for the applicant could not give any reply. Only this much has been submitted that he was inducted over the property in question by some unknown person. Copy of the written statement has been filed as annexure-4 to the affidavit. It would show that the execution of rent agreement is not disputed by the tenant-applicant. He has come out with the case that the said rent agreement was obtained by the plaintiff-landlord by concealing facts. Question of ownership is not relevant for the purposes of determination of question of landlord and tenant between the parties. It is interesting to note the contents of para-33 of the written statement. A reading of the said paragraph demonstrates that it is the plaintiff who inducted the applicant as tenant in the property in dispute. Under the provisions of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972, a landlord is a person to whom the rent is payable. There cannot be possible a tenancy without landlord. The plea raised by the tenant that he does not know his landlord is strange plea and cannot be accepted.
The trial court has taken a very lenient view of the matter by permitting the defendant-tenant to deposit the arrears of rent/damages by the next date fixed. It is not the case of the defendant-tenant that he has paid any rent to any person after he was inducted as tenant. The landlord claims that a sum of Rs.6,17,970/- is due from the tenant for the period upto December, 2011. If the said amount is not deposited within the time allowed by the trial court, the defence of the defendant-tenant is liable to be struck off.
The cases relied upon by the learned counsel for the applicant have no application to the facts of the present case as they relate to the question of denial of title by the tenant.
In this state of affairs, I do not find any legal error in the order under revision. There is no merit in the revision.
The revision is dismissed summarily.
(Prakash Krishna,J)
Order Date :- 30.4.2012
MK/
