Smt Prema Kumari vs M/S Narayan Krishi Udyog Pvt. ...
2019 Latest Caselaw 4055 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

AFR
 
Court No. - 58
 

 
Case :- CIVIL REVISION No. - 106 of 2009
 

 
Revisionist :- Smt Prema Kumari
 
Opposite Party :- M/S Narayan Krishi Udyog Pvt. Ltd.And Others
 
Counsel for Revisionist :- Tarun Verma
 

 
Hon'ble Dr. Yogendra Kumar Srivastava,J.

1. Heard Sri Shesh Pandey, Advocate holding brief of Sri Tarun Verma, learned counsel for the revisionist.

2. The present revision has been filed against the order dated 09.03.2009 passed by the Additional District Judge, Court No.13, Varanasi in SCC Suit No.28 of 2007 (Smt. Prema Kumari Vs. M/s Narayan Krishi Udyog Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.) whereby the suit of the plaintiff-revisionist instituted for eviction of respondent-tenants and arrears of rent was dismissed.

3. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the plaintiff filed a suit, SCC Suit No.28 of 2007 for ejectment, possession and arrears of rent in respect of the part of the premises bearing House No.21/4D, Maldahiya, Varanasi, which was contested by the defendant-tenant by filing a written statement, whereafter oral and documentary evidence were led by the parties. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties and evidence on record the trial court framed the following issues/points of determination:-

"1& D;k iz'uxr Hkou ij vf/kfu;e la[;k&13 lu~ 1972 ds izkfo/kku ykxw ugha gksrs\

2& D;k izfroknhx.k }kjk fdjk;snkjh okys Hkou esa rkfRod ifjorZu fd;k x;k [email protected] dks lkjHkwr {kfr dkfjr dh x;h gS] ftlls Hkou ds ewY; dk gªkl gks x;k gS vkSj bldh mi;ksfxrk de gks x;h gS\

3& D;k uksfVl fnukafdr&[email protected]@07 izfroknhx.k ij rkehy gqbZ gS\

4& D;k okn l{ke vkfFkZd {ks=kf/kdkj ds U;k;ky; esa lafLFkr ugha fd;k x;k gS rFkk iks"k.kh; ugha gS\

5& D;k okfnuh gtkZ izkIr djus dh vf/kdkfj.kh gS\ ;fn gkW rks fdl nj ls\

6& okfnuh fdl vuqrks"k dks izkIr djus dh vf/kdkfj.kh gS\"

4. As regards issue no.1, upon considering the evidence on record a finding was returned that the rent of the portion of the building which was under the tenancy of the defendant-tenant was Rs.500/- per month, and accordingly the exemption under Section 2(1)(g) of the U.P. Act No.13 of 1972 would not be attracted and the provisions of the U.P. Act No.13 of 1972 would be applicable.

5. In respect of the issue with regard to structural alteration the trial court upon a detailed consideration of the evidence which was led by the parties has returned a categorical finding that towards north of the disputed shop a portion of the wall had been removed and in its place a plywood partition had been set up; however, the same would not amount to a structural alteration in the building as is likely to diminish its value, and as such the issue was answered in the negative.

6. The issue with regard to the notice having been served and the question of jurisdiction were also decided in the affirmative.

7. The trial court has concluded by holding that the plaintiff landlord had not been able to prove the factum of structural alteration in the building as is likely to diminish its value, which was the principle ground for instituting the suit for eviction, and the provisions of the U.P. Act No.13 of 1972 having been held to be applicable, the plaintiff-landlord was not entitled for the relief sought i.e. eviction of the tenant, and as such the suit was dismissed.

8. Counsel appearing for the revisionist has not been able to dispute the finding returned by the trial court with regard to the rent of the portion of the building which was under the tenancy of the defendant-tenant to be Rs.500/- per month, and accordingly the premises in question being not exempt from the provision of the U.P. Act No.13 of 1972. The counsel for the revisionist has also not been able to point out any error or perversity in the findings of fact recorded by the trial court on the basis of an appreciation of evidence that the setting up of a plywood partition would not amount to a structural alteration in the building as is likely to diminish its value so as to create a ground for eviction.

9. No other argument was raised by the learned counsel for the revisionist.

10. The findings returned by the trial court are findings of fact based on the pleadings of the parties and an appreciation of the evidence on record.

11. The scope of revisional jurisdiction under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887 (in short 'the Act, 1887') fell for consideration in a recent judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Trilok Singh Chauhan V. Ram Lal & Ors.1, wherein referring to the earlier judgment in the case of Hari Shankar Vs. Rao Girdhari Lal Chowdhury2, Bell & Co. Ltd. Vs. Waman Hemraj3 and Mundri Lal Vs. Sushhila Rani4, it was held as follows:-

"15. The scope of Section 25 of the 1887 Act, came for consideration before this Court on several occasions. In Hari Shankar v. Rao Girdhari Lal Chowdhury [AIR 1963 SC 698], in paras 9 and 10, this Court laid down the following: (AIR p. 701)

"9. The section we are dealing with, is almost the same as Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act. That section has been considered by the High Courts in numerous cases and diverse interpretations have been given. The powers that it is said to confer would make a broad spectrum commencing, at one end, with the view that only substantial errors of law can be corrected under it, and ending, at the other, with a power of interference a little better than what an appeal gives. It is useless to discuss those cases in some of which the observations were probably made under compulsion of certain unusual facts. It is sufficient to say that we consider that the most accurate exposition of the meaning of such sections is that of Beaumont, C.J. (as he then was) in Bell & Co. Ltd. v. Waman Hemraj [1937 SCC OnLine Bom 99 : (1938) 40 Bom LR 125 : AIR 1938 Bom 223], where the learned Chief Justice, dealing with Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, observed: (SCC OnLine Bom paras 3-4)

''3. ... The object of Section 25 is to enable the High Court to see that there has been no miscarriage of justice, that the decision was given according to law.

4. The section does not enumerate the cases in which the Court may interfere in revision, as does, Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and I certainly do not propose to attempt an exhaustive definition of the circumstances which may justify such interference; but instances which readily occur to the mind are cases in which the Court which made the order had no jurisdiction, or in which the Court has based its decision on evidence which should not have been admitted, or cases where the unsuccessful party has not been given a proper opportunity of being heard, or the burden of proof has been placed on the wrong shoulders. Wherever the Court comes to the conclusion that the unsuccessful party has not had a proper trial according to law, then the Court can interfere. But, in my opinion, the Court ought not to interfere merely because it thinks that possibly the Judge who heard the case may have arrived at a conclusion which the High Court would not have arrived at.'

This observation has our full concurrence.

10. What the learned Chief Justice has said applies to Section 35 of the Act, with which we are concerned. Judged from this point of view, the learned Single Judge was not justified in interfering with a plain finding of fact and more so, because he himself proceeded on a wrong assumption."

16. Another judgment which needs to be noted is judgment of this Court in Mundri Lal v. Sushila Rani [(2007) 8 SCC 609]. This Court held that jurisdiction under Section 25 of the 1887 Act, is wider than the revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 CPC. But pure finding of fact based on appreciation of evidence may not be interfered with, in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 25 of the 1887 Act. The Court also explained the circumstances under which, findings can be interfered with in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 25. There are very limited grounds on which there can be interference in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 25; they are, when (i) findings are perverse or (ii) based on no material or (iii) findings have been arrived at upon taking into consideration the inadmissible evidence or (iv) findings have been arrived at without consideration of relevant evidence."

12. Counsel for the revisionist has not been able to point out any material error or illegality in the order passed by the trial court so as to warrant interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction under Section 25 of the Act, 1887.

13. The revision lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed.

Order Date :- 3.5.2019

Shahroz

(Dr. Y.K. Srivastava,J.)