Allahabad High Court
Jeet Singh @ Manmindar Singh vs Chheda Lal Jaiswal on 3 January, 2023
Bench: Salil Kumar Rai
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 38
Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 12032 of 2022
Petitioner :- Jeet Singh @ Manmindar Singh
Respondent :- Chheda Lal Jaiswal
Counsel for Petitioner :- Manish Kumar Nigam
Counsel for Respondent :- Rahul Saxena
Hon'ble Salil Kumar Rai,J.
Heard Shri Manish Kumar Nigam, counsel for the petitioner and Shri Anoop Trivedi assisted by Shri Rahul Saxena, counsel for the respondents.
This is a tenant's petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the decree of eviction and arrears of rent passed by the Small Causes Court in S.C.C.Case No.12 of 2006 instituted by the respondent-landlord.
The facts of the case are that the respondent-landlord instituted Small Causes Case No.12 of 2006 against the petitioner alleging that the petitioner was a tenant of the disputed premises on a rent of Rs.200/- per month and his tenancy had been terminated by a valid notice after he defaulted in payment of rent. Notices were issued in the aforesaid case to the petitioner but the said notices were returned back with the endorsement that the petitioner had refused to receive the same. On the aforesaid endorsement, the Small Causes Court i.e., the Civil Judge (Senior Division), District Pilibhit declared the notices to have been served on the petitioner and proceedings in Small Causes Case No.12 of 2006 were held ex parte against the petitioner. By its judgment and decree dated 8.2.2008, the Small Causes Court decreed the suit for arrears of rent and eviction against the petitioner. The decree was put in execution and Execution Case No.4 of 2008 was registered for execution of the decree. Notice was also issued to the petitioner in the aforesaid Execution Case No.4 of 2008 but the same was returned back with the endorsement that the petitioner had refused to receive the same and subsequently a writ of possession was issued by the executing court directing the Commissioner to ensure that the landlord-respondent is put in possession of the disputed premises with the help of the Police Force. When the petitioner came to know about the aforesaid, he filed an application under Order 9 Rule 13 of C.P.C for recall and setting aside of the judgment and decree dated 8.2.2008 passed by the Small Causes Court, Pilibhit in Small Causes Case No.12 of 2006. The said application was rejected by the Small Causes Court vide its order dated 6.9.2022. The petitioner filed Misc.Appeal No.70 of 2022 before the District Judge, Pilibhit against the order dated 6.9.2022 and the said appeal has been dismissed by the District Judge, Pilibhit vide his order dated 8.12.2022. The present petition has been filed challenging the judgement and decree dated 8.2.2008, the order dated 6.9.2022 as well as the order dated 8.12.2022.
The counsel for the parties have argued on the legality and on the propriety of the Small Causes Court in proceeding ex parte against the petitioner-tenant and also on the legality of the orders dated 6.9.2022 and 8.12.2022 and the findings recorded in the said orders regarding the bonafides of the petitioner-tenant in not appearing before the trial court in S.C.C.No.12 of 2006 and also regarding the delay in filing the application under Order 9 Rule 13 C.P.C.
A perusal of the judgment dated 8.2.2008 passed by the Small Causes Court in Small Causes Case No.12 of 2006 shows that the said judgment does not fulfill the requirements of Order 20 Rule 4 C.P.C. The judgment merely states that the plaintiff had proved his case through oral and documentary evidence which have not been rebutted by the defendant.
A judgment by Small Causes Court, even if it is an ex parte judgment, must be sufficiently intelligible and shows that the Court had applied its mind to the facts of the case, considered the material evidence and should indicate the reasons for the decision and the process by which the Court has recorded its conclusions. Even an ex parte judgment should contain a short summary of the discussion of evidence, oral or documentary, and should also state the points of determination. The judgment in the present case does not even contain the points of determination involved in the case.
In view of the aforesaid, the judgment and decree dated 8.2.2008 passed by the Small Causes Court in Small Cause Case No.12 of 2006 instituted by the respondent-landlord is contrary to law and is liable to be quashed. Consequently, the subsequent orders dated 6.9.2022 and 8.2.2008 passed by the Small Causes Court and the District Judge, Pilibhit in proceedings under Order 9 Rule 13 C.P.C are also liable to be quashed. In view of the aforesaid, no opinion is required to be expressed on the findings recorded by the trial court as well as the appeal court on the bonafides of the petitioner as well as the validity of the proceedings held ex parte against the petitioner on the basis of the endorsement on the notice that the petitioner had refused to receive the notices issued by the trial court or on the findings recorded in the courts below regarding the delay on the part of the petitioner in filing the application under Order 9 Rule 13 C.P.C.
The judgment and decree dated 8.2.2008 as well as the orders dated 6.9.2022 and 8.2.2008 passed by the Small Causes Court and the District Judge, Pilibhit are hereby quashed. The mater is remanded back to the Small Causes Court, Pilibhit to pass fresh orders in accordance with law in S.C.C Case No.12 of 2006 after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner to present his case.
The petitioner shall file his written statement within two weeks from today and in any case by 31.1.2023. The Small Causes Court, Pilibhit after giving reasonable opportunity to the parties to present their evidence shall decide S.C.C.Case No.12 of 2006 within six months from today and in any case by 31.7.2023. It is further directed that along with his written statement, the petitioner shall deposit the entire decreetal amount due till date under the judgment and decree dated 8.2.2008 and shall also continue to deposit the monthly rent as determined by the trial court in the judgment dated 8.2.2008.
With the aforesaid directions, the petition is allowed.
Order Date :- 3.1.2023
IB
