Allahabad High Court
Hukum Singh Verma vs Km. Shanti Devi Jain on 27 May, 2024
Author: Neeraj Tiwari
Bench: Neeraj Tiwari
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:96357
Court No. - 50
Case :- S.C.C. REVISION No. - 74 of 2024
Revisionist :- Hukum Singh Verma
Opposite Party :- Km. Shanti Devi Jain
Counsel for Revisionist :- Manish Pandey,Radhey Krishna Pandey
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Dinesh Pathak
Hon'ble Neeraj Tiwari,J.
1. Heard Sri Radhey Krishna Pandey, learned counsel for the revisionist and Sri Dinesh Pathak, learned counsel for the opposite party.
2. Present revision has been filed with the prayer to allow the present revision and set aside the impugned judgment and decree dated 18.07.2022 & 01.08.2022 passed by Additional District Judge/Special Judge(POCSO Act)/Small Cause Judge/Court No. 2, Meerut in SCC Case No. 16 of 2016(CNR NO. UPME01-005468-2016), Km Shanti Devi Jain vs. Hukum Singh Verma, District-Meerut.
3. Learned counsel for the revisionist-defendant submitted that revisionist is living together with plaintiff-respondent as brother and sister since 1974. In the year 1978, revisionist purchased a land in the name of plaintiff-respondent (his sister) and also constructed a house upon the said land. He next submitted that there was no dispute between the parties up to 2015, but after that a notice has been served upon the revisionist-defendant on 01.11.2015 for arrears of rent and eviction of house in question. He next submitted that revisionist-defendant replied the aforesaid notice disputing the ownership of the plaintiff-respondent on the house in question. Ultimately, plaintiff-respondent filed SCC Case No. 16 of 2016, in which three issues were framed and vide first issue, the SCC Court has decided the title in favour of revisionist-defendant. He next submitted that in light of several pronouncements made by the Hon'ble Apex Court as well as this Court, in SCC Suit, title may not be decided by the SCC Court, therefore, impugned judgment and decree dated 18.07.2022 & 01.08.2022 are bad and liable to be set aside.
4. Per contra, Sri Dinesh Pathak, learned counsel for the opposite party submitted that in fact, SCC Court has decided the title based upon papers presented before it and opined that revisionist-defendant is having no paper showing his title over the house in question, rather, plaintiff-respondent is having a sale deed and a municipal assessment paper with regard to house in question. Not only this, even revisionist-defendant himself has filed Suit No. 118 of 2015 for cancelling the sale deed in which he has accepted the title of plaintiff-respondent over the land in question. Therefore, on the basis of record available, SCC Court has only held that a frivolous dispute has been raised by the revisionist-defendant about the title. Not only this, revisionist-defendant himself filed another suit being Suit No. 133 of 2020 for permanent injunction based upon adverse possession and the same is still pending for disposal, which also shows that as on date, revisionist-defendant is having no document showing his title, therefore, SCC Court has not decided the title, but expressed its opinion based upon documents placed before it. He further submitted that in regarding issue no. 2, SCC Court has held that U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 is not applicable and service of notice is admitted, therefore, in light of this fact, tenancy stood terminated and SCC Court has rightly passed judgment and decree dated 18.07.2022 & 01.08.2022 to evict the revisionist-defendant from the house in question.
5. I have considered the submission made by learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
6. The facts of the case so argued are undisputed between the parties. It is undisputed that there is sale deed and also municipal assessment paper in favour of plaintiff-respondent. It is also undisputed that earlier revisionist-defendant has filed Suit No. 118 of 2015 for cancelling of sale deed admitting the plaintiff-opposite party as owner of the land in question and further, he has filed Suit No. 133 of 2020 for permanent injunction based upon adverse possession, which is still pending. He is having no interim injunction in his favour in the pending suits. Therefore, under such facts, SCC Court has not decided the title, rather, it expressed its opinion rightly treating the plaintiff-respondent the landlady based upon documents placed before it.
7. The other issue is about the applicability of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972. The court has held that the Act is not applicable and once the notice has been served, which is not disputed in the present case, order of eviction cannot be said to be bad, as the same has not been disputed by the revisionist-defendant.
8. Therefore, I found no infirmity or illegality in the impugned judgment and decree dated 18.07.2022 & 01.08.2022.
9. Revision lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed.
10. At this stage, it is relevant to mention here that it is undisputed between the parties that age of revisionist-defendant is about 86 years, whereas, age of plaintiff-respondent is about 88 years, therefore, considering the age factor, revisionist-defendant is granted six months time to vacate the house in question, subject to payment of rent @ Rs. 6,000/- per month on or before 7th day of every month till the vacation of house in question.
Order Date :- 27.5.2024
ADY
