Allahabad High Court
Ramesh Kumar vs Shri Lokeshwar Prasad Aggrawal ... on 11 January, 2023
Bench: Salil Kumar Rai
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 38
Case :- S.C.C. REVISION No. - 4 of 2023
Revisionist :- Ramesh Kumar
Opposite Party :- Shri Lokeshwar Prasad Aggrawal And 12 Others
Counsel for Revisionist :- Komal Mehrotra
Counsel for Opposite Party :- D. Kumar. Misra
Hon'ble Salil Kumar Rai,J.
The present revision under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Court Act, 1887 arises from order dated 17.12.2022 passed by the District Judge, Meerut in Misc.Case No.352 of 2022 registered under Order 21 Rule 97 C.P.C 1908. The District Judge, Meerut vide his order dated 17.12.2022 has rejected the application under Order 21 Rule 97 C.P.C by the revisionist.
The facts relevant for deciding the present revision are that Small Causes Court Case No.13 of 1995 (Lokeshwar Prasad and another versus M/s Shiv Shambhu Pictures Pvt.Ltd., & others) was filed by the landlord/predecessor- in- interest of the opposite parties/respondents for eviction of the tenant from the demised premises known as Jagat Cinema Complex. Shri Lokeshwar Prasad Agarwal was admittedly the landlord of the demised premises which was let out to one M/s Shiv Shambhu Pictures Pvt.Ltd. with effect from 15.2.1973 on a monthly rent of Rs.3500/-. A memorandum of agreement was executed by the parties on 15.2.1973 and a proper lease deed appears to have been executed on the same date. Clause 7(c) of the memorandum of lease deed provided as follows:
"7. That the party of the second part shall:-
... .... .... ........ ......
(c) Not to assign the leasehold rights or sub-let the demise premises to anybody except issue licenses for canteen, cycle stand etc. for running the same in the said premises and to sublet the four shops which are to be leased out to the party of the second part along with the cinema premises and as shown in the plan annexed to this agreement."
Clause 7(c) of the lease deed permitted the tenant to sublet the four shops in the demised premises. The revisionist is a tenant in one of the four shops.
S.C.C. Suit No.13 of 1995 was decreed by order dated 7.9.2000 and after the challenge to the said decree was rejected by this Court as well as by the Supreme Court, the decree was put in execution registering Execution Petition No.2 of 2009. In the aforesaid Execution Case, the revisionist filed an application under Order 21 Rule 97 C.P.C pleading that the decree was not binding on him as he was not inducted as tenant by M/s Shiv Shambhu Pictures Pvt.Ltd., but was inducted as tenant by Late Lala Bulaki Dass, the predecessor in interest of Lokeshwar Prasad Agarwal. The plea of the revisionist was that he was a tenant of the decree holder in his own right and not a sub-tenant of M/s Shiv Shambhu Pictures Pvt.Ltd. The application was contested by the respondents who denied the aforesaid plea of the revisionist and alleged that the revisionist was inducted as tenant in the demised premises by the tenant M/s Shiv Shambhu Pictures Pvt.Ltd. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the executing court framed an issue as to whether the applicant i.e., the revisionist was the tenant in the disputed shop in his own right, of the decree holder independently and is not a sub-tenant of M/s Shiv Shambhu Pictures Pvt.Ltd.
It transpires from a reading of the judgment dated 17.12.2022 passed by the District Judge, Meerut that in his examination in chief, the revisionist had stated that his father Jhabbamal was inducted as tenant in the shop by Late Lala Bulaki Dass and was asked to pay rent to one Chokhani, the original tenant of Jagat Cinema Complex and therefore, his father continued paying rent to the aforesaid Chokhani. The revisionist further testified that when Chokhani left the tenancy of Jagat Cinema Complex, M/s Shiv Shambhu Pictures Pvt.Ltd., was inducted as a tenant by the landlords/respondents and thereafter the rent of the shop in question was paid to M/s Shiv Shambhu Pictures Pvt.Ltd. The rent receipts produced by the revisionist indicate that the tenancy of the father of the revisionist started in December 1958 and the said rent receipts were issued by the Manager of Jagat Cinema.
It was the admitted case of the revisionist that Lokeshwar Prasad Agarwal never managed the Cinema House and the revisionist or his ancestors never paid any rent either to Lokeshwar Prasad Agarwal or his descendants. It is admitted case of the revisionist that rent was being paid to the person running Jagat Cinema.
After considering the testimony of the revisionist, the District Judge has rightly held that the testimony of the revisionist and the documentary evidence produced by him showed that the father of the revisionist was inducted as tenant by Chokhani, the original tenant of Jagat Cinema and was not inducted as tenant by the landlords/decree holders and when the tenancy of Chokhani was terminated, the sub-tenancy of the father of the petitioner came to an end. It has been rightly observed by the District Judge that after the judgment debtor was inducted as a tenant, the father of the revisionist and subsequently, the revisionist became a sub-tenant of the new tenant. The District Judge has rightly observed that when the father of the revisionist or the revisionist were not inducted as a tenant by the original landlords/decree holders, the revisionist cannot claim any independent right as a tenant of the decree holders and not as a sub tenant of the judgment debtor.
The District Judge, Meerut has held that revisionist was putting up a false claim of an independent right only to delay the execution of the decree in favour of the decree holders. The District Judge, Meerut has held that the evidence on record indicate that the revisionist was a sub-tenant of the judgment debtor and does not have any right to resist or obstruct the execution of the decree and the decree is binding on him and therefore, no relief can be granted to the revisionist.
The findings recorded by the District Judge, Meerut are based on evidence on record. The burden to prove that the revisionist or his ancestors were not inducted as tenant either by the judgement debtor or Chokhani but by Late Lala Bulaki Dass was on the revisionist. No document to prove the aforesaid plea was produced by the revisionist before the executing court.
In the circumstances, no material illegality either of law or fact has been committed by the District Judge, Meerut in dismissing the application filed under Order 21 Rule 97 C.P.C. At this stage, it would be further relevant to note that regarding two other shops mentioned in the memorandum of agreement dated 15.2.1973, similar objections were raised by the concerned sub-tenants and the said objections had been rejected by the execution court against which S.C.C Revision Nos. 92 of 2022 and 93 of 2022 were filed before this Court which were dismissed by this Court vide its order dated 9.6.2022.
For the aforesaid reasons, the present revision lacks merit and is dismissed.
Order Date :- 11.1.2023
IB
