Allahabad High Court
Smt. Parwati Devi And Another vs Rakshama Tiwari on 14 July, 2021
Bench: J.J. Munir
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 1
Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 2812 of 2021
Petitioner :- Smt. Parwati Devi And Another
Respondent :- Rakshama Tiwari
Counsel for Petitioner :- Vivek Kumar Singh
Hon'ble J.J. Munir,J.
Heard Mr. Vivek Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners at length in support of the motion to admit this petition to hearing.
By the impugned order dated 10.03.2021, passed by the Additional District Judge, Court No.9, Kanpur Nagar, in SCC Revision No.48 of 2020, two applications made by the petitioner have been declined. One is an application under Order VI Rule 17, CPC seeking amendment to the memorandum of Revision and by the second application, a report of the Advocate Commissioner submitted in Original Suit No.1298 of 2020, has been sought to be placed on record of the Revision. A suit for eviction has been decreed by the Judge, Small Cause Courts against the petitioners, who are tenants of the plaintiff-respondents. The petitioners have carried SCC Revision No.48 of 2020, to the District Judge, that is now pending before the Additional District Judge, Court No.9, Kanpur Nagar.
It is the petitioners' case that pending these proceedings, the landlord has caused damage to the demised premises of which the petitioners have instituted Original Suit No.1298 of 2020, before the regular side of Civil Court, which is now pending before the Court of the Additional Civil Judge, (Junior Division), Kanpur Nagar, seeking an injunction restraining the landlord from damaging or destroying the demised premises. In the said suit, a Commission for local inspection was taken out, who submitted a report dated 15.02.2021. The petitioners moved an Amendment Application seeking to amend the memo of Revision, incorporating these supervening facts about damage to the demised premises, the institution of a suit by the tenant and the report of the Commissioner, returned in the said suit. By a separate application, a copy of the Commissioner's report made in Original Suit No.1298 of 2020 was prayed to be accepted on the records of the Revision. Both these applications have came to be rejected by the impugned judgment and order.
So far as the amendment application is concerned, the Revisional Court has opined that the said fact ought to have been raised before the Trial Court and further, in any case, the amendment sought does not appear to be bona fide. Insofar as the first reason to decline the amendment application is concerned, learned counsel for the petitioners points out that the report of the Advocate Commissioner was not in existence when the suit was pending before the Trial Court. It is true that this part of the reasoning of the Revisional Court is not sound. However, so far as the other part is concerned that the amendment sought is not bona fide, it is just and proper. The reason is that the present revision arises out of a rent suit brought for eviction and arrears of rent against the petitioner, who is a tenant. The question of damage done to the demised premises by the landlord is hardly relevant within the limited scope of the suit that is now before the Revisional Court against the Trial Court's decree. The petitioner is already pursuing his remedies for preventing further damage to the demised premises before the regular side of the Civil Court. That he can do and secure appropriate remedies to preserve the demised premises.
The question of damage done to the demises premises per se is not relevant in a suit for eviction. That apart, a Commissioner's report which has been issued in another suit inter partes is not relevant in the present suit or the Revision arising therefrom in view of the provisions of Sections 40 to 44 of the Indian Evidence Act, which mandate that the evidence recorded in another suit, cannot be read here unless expressly relevant under the last mentioned provisions. For the same reasons, the order of the Revisional Court declining to accept a copy of the Commissioner's report is also not at all flawed, in the opinion of this Court.
In the result, this petition fails and is summarily dismissed.
There shall be no order as to costs.
Order Date :- 14.7.2021
NSC
