Allahabad High Court
Harish Chandra Goel @ Haresh ... vs Smt. Amarjit Kaur on 17 January, 2023
Bench: Salil Kumar Rai
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 38
Case :- CIVIL REVISION No. - 417 of 2006
Revisionist :- Harish Chandra Goel @ Haresh Chandra Goel
Opposite Party :- Smt. Amarjit Kaur
Counsel for Revisionist :- Manish Chandra Tewari,Madhav Jain,Vishal Khandelwal
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Prakash Gupta,Ashish Gupta
Hon'ble Salil Kumar Rai,J.
Heard the counsel for the revisionist.
This is a tenant's revision under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887 challenging the judgment and decree dated 15.7.2006 passed by the Additional District Judge, Court No.09, District Agra decreeing Small Causes Court Case No. 04 of 1994 (Smt. Amarjit Kaur vs. Harish Chandra Goel).
Small Causes Court Case No. 04 of 1994 was instituted by the respondent - landlord against the revisionist - tenant alleging herself to be the owner and landlord of the suit premises in which the revisionist was a tenant on a rent of Rs.1,500/- per month. It was alleged that the shop was, for the first time, assessed for municipal taxes by the Nagar Palika, Agra in 1991 and, therefore, Act No. 13 of 1972 was not applicable on the suit premises. It was further alleged by the respondent - landlord that the revisionist had not paid rent since June, 1993 and, therefore, a notice terminating his tenancy and demanding arrears of rent was issued on 5.7.1993 which was served on the revisionist on 12.7.1993. However, the revisionist - tenant did not vacate the suit property and, therefore, Small Causes Court Case No. 04 of 1994 was instituted for arrears of rent and eviction of the revisionist from the suit premises.
In the trial court, the revisionist - tenant admitted the relationship of landlord and tenant between himself and the respondent - landlord but denied that he had defaulted in payment of rent. In support of his contention that he had been continuously paying rent, the revisionist - tenant submitted a photo copy of a receipt showing payment of Rs.21,500/- to the respondent - landlord. The original receipt was not produced in the court below. The photo copy was marked as Paper No. 39-Ga.
The trial court, after holding that the suit property was, for the first time, assessed for municipal taxes by the Nagar Palika, Agra in 1991, held that Act No. 13 of 1972 was not applicable on the suit property. The postal receipts indicating that the notice terminating the tenancy of the revisionist was sent by registered post and was served on the revisionist were submitted by the respondent - landlord and were marked as Exhibit - 1, 3 and 4 in the trial court. Relying on the aforesaid documents, the trial court held that the tenancy of the revisionist had been validly terminated and, therefore, the revisionist had no right to retain the suit property. The trial court also rejected Paper No. 39-Ga filed by the revisionist which was a photo copy of the rent receipt allegedly issued to the revisionist on the ground that the same was not reliable and, further, the original had not been filed before the trial court. Consequently, the trial court vide its judgment and decree dated 15.7.2006 decreed Small Causes Court Case No. 04 of 1994.
The trial court has recorded its finding after considering the evidence on record. There is no jurisdictional error or any irregularity either of fact or law or of procedure so as to call for interference by this Court under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887. There is no perversity in the findings of the trial court.
In its judgment dated 15.7.2006, the trial court has held that Act No. 13 of 1972 was not applicable on the suit property. No document had been filed by the revisionist to rebut the findings of the trial court that the suit property was, for the first time, assessed for municipal taxes by the Nagar Palika, Agra in 1991. The service of notice terminating the tenancy of the revisionist was proved by the postal receipts filed by the respondent - landlord and there is no evidence on record to controvert the findings recorded by the trial court on the aforesaid issue.
The revision has no merit and is, hereby, dismissed.
Order Date :- 17.1.2023
Satyam
