Allahabad High Court
Pradeep Goyal vs Smt. Bina Jain And Another on 24 January, 2023
Bench: Salil Kumar Rai
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 38
Case :- CIVIL REVISION No. - 27 of 2013
Revisionist :- Pradeep Goyal
Opposite Party :- Smt. Bina Jain And Another
Counsel for Revisionist :- Vikrant Pandey
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Ashish Kumar Singh,Ajay Kumar Singh
Hon'ble Salil Kumar Rai,J.
Heard Shri Sharad Sharma holding brief of Shri Vikrant Pandey counsel for the revisionist and the counsel for the respondent.
This is a tenant's revision challenging the judgment and decree dated 11.12.2012 passed by the Additional District Judge, Court No.8, Saharanpur acting as Small Causes Court, District Saharanpur decreeing Small Causes Case No.15 of 2010 instituted by the respondent-landlord for arrears of rent and eviction of the revisionist from the suit property.
The relevant facts of the case are that the respondents/landlord instituted Small Causes Case No.15 of 2010 claiming that the suit property was transferred to him by the erstwhile landlord through registered sale deed dated 31.10.2007. The revisionist was a tenant of the erstwhile landlord on a rent of Rs.500/- per month and his tenancy continued under the respondent. However, the revisionist defaulted in payment of rent and therefore, his tenancy was terminated through a notice dated 14.4.2010 which was served on the revisionist on 19.4.2010. The revisionist/tenant did not vacate the suit property and also did not pay the arrears of rent. Hence, the necessity to institute Small Causes Case No.15 of 2010.
The revisionist/tenant contested the case and filed his written statement denying the landlord-tenant relationship between himself and the respondents. The case of the revisionist was that the revisionist was presently in occupation of the property on the basis of an oral agreement entered into between himself and the erstwhile landlord of the suit property as well as his legal representatives whereby the aforesaid persons had agreed to transfer the suit property in favour of the revisionist and the revisionist had also paid earnest money for the same. However, in his written statement, the revisionist admitted that he was inducted as a tenant by the erstwhile landlord on a rent of Rs.500/- per month.
The trial court, after considering the evidence on record, did not accept the plea of the revisionist and decreed S.C.C. Suit No.15 of 2010 after recording a finding regarding default in payment of rent by the revisionist and also the validity of the notice served under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act.
It was argued by the counsel for the revisionist that the trial court has not properly appreciated the plea of the revisionist that at present there was no tenant-landlord relationship between himself and the respondent and the revisionist was in occupation of the suit property by virtue of an understanding reached between himself and the erstwhile landlord of the suit property and therefore, for the aforesaid reason, the revision is liable to be allowed and the decree passed by the trial court is to be set aside.
I have considered the submissions of the counsel for the tenant-revisionist.
It is the admitted case of the revisionist that he was inducted in the suit property as a tenant on a rent of Rs.500/- per month. The revisionist produced no document to substantiate his plea regarding any understanding or agreement with the erstwhile owner and in fact his witness had admitted that no sale deed had been executed in favour of the revisionist. On the plea of the revisionist himself, no rights were created in favour of the revisionist as the oral understanding pleaded by the revisionist confers no right on the revisionist. There is no written agreement in favour of the revisionist and therefore, the revisionist can also not claim benefit of Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act.
There is no error in the judgment and decree dated 11.12.2012 passed by the trial court. The revision lacks merit and is dismissed.
Order Date :- 24.1.2023
IB
