Anand Kumar Upadhyay vs Surendra Pal Singh
2016 Latest Caselaw 4610 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 2
 

 
Case :- CIVIL REVISION No. - 46 of 2013
 

 
Revisionist :- Anand Kumar Upadhyay
 
Opposite Party :- Surendra Pal Singh
 
Counsel for Revisionist :- Ranjit Saxena,Deepak Saxena
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Hitesh Pachori
 

 
Hon'ble Pankaj Mithal,J.

Heard learned counsel for the plaintiff revisionist.

The plaintiff revisionist claims himself to be the owner and landlord of the premises in dispute. He filed a suit for rent eviction against the respondent tenant. The suit has been dismissed by the Additional District Judge exercising powers of Judge Small Causes Court.

The court below has dismissed the suit for one of the reasons that the plaintiff revisionist failed to prove the notice dated 05.12.2003 by which it is alleged that the tenancy was determined.

The plaintiff revisionist by his statement has not proved the notice or even its service. In fact no statement was made by him in relation to the alleged notice.

Thus, the court below held that the notice has not been proved and its absence, the suit is not liable to be decreed.

In view of above, I do not find any jurisdictional error in the impugned judgement and order of the court below. The revision as such lacks merit and is dismissed.

Order Date :- 28.7.2016

piyush