Vishwa Nath vs Mohd. Shahid
2021 Latest Caselaw 1012 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 4
 

 
Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 112 of 2021
 

 
Petitioner :- Vishwa Nath
 
Respondent :- Mohd. Shahid
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Santosh Kumar
 

 
Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Birla,J.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

Present writ petition has been filed seeking setting aside of the impugned order dated 18.2.2018 passed by the trial court under Section 23 of the Small Cause Court Act in Case No. 147 of 2014 as well as order dated 24.1.2020 passed by the Additional District Judge, Court No. 11, Kanpur Nagar in Small Causes Revision No. 122 of 2018 (CNR No. UPKN01-014551-2018) whereby the revision of the petitioner has been rejected and the order of trial court has been affirmed.

By the impugned order dated 18.2.2018 passed by the trial court the application Paper no. 36 Ga filed under Section 23 of the Provincial Small Causes Court Act has been rejected. The revision filed against the same was also dismissed vide order dated 24.1.2020.

Stamp Reporter has reported laches of 239 days in filing the present writ petition.

Submission is that in view of the declaration made by the Kanpur Development Authority the area, within which the property in dispute is situated has been declared as Malin Basti area and therefore, no sale deed could have been executed in favour of the landlord herein and hence, the application filed under Section 23 of the Act was liable to be allowed.

I do not find any substance in the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner. The case is covered by the judgment of this Court rendered in the case of Smt. Bano Vs. Ashad Ullaa Khand (since deceased) and 4 others 2017 (3) ARC 807, paragraph 10 whereof is quoted as under:

"10. A perusal of page 108 of the paper book, which is information issued under the Right to Information Act, indicates that acquisition is only of the land and the owner of the house continues to be remain owner of the house and facts of unauthorized sale of land only has been taken into consideration. As such, the landlord continues to be the owner of the construction, which is purchased by him through a sale deed, which is duly registered and have also been registered in the revenue record. The plaintiff was the landlord of the house, which was let out to the petitioner herein. Insofar as the default part is concerned, nothing contrary to the assertions made by the landlord came forward from the tenant and therefore, findings on default requires no interference."

This writ petition is devoid of merit and is, accordingly, dismissed.

Order Date :- 18.1.2021

p.s.