Allahabad High Court
Shanti Devi And 2 Ors. vs Additional District Judge Court No. 8 ... on 11 August, 2025
Author: Pankaj Bhatia
Bench: Pankaj Bhatia
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:46939
Court No. - 6
Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 357 of 2020
Petitioner :- Shanti Devi And 2 Ors.
Respondent :- Additional District Judge Court No. 8 Faizabad And Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Vijay Krishna Srivastava
Counsel for Respondent :- Rakesh Kumar Srivastava
Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.
1. Admittedly, the petitioner no.1 has died and no substitution application has been filed, however, the petitioner no.2 and 3 are the legal heirs of petitioner no.1.
2. An application has also been filed stating that, no substitution application has been filed on account of death of opposite party no.6 and opposite party no.4. Similarly, an application bearing I.A. No.7 of 2025 filed on behalf of the petitioners for setting aside the abatement.
3. Considering the fact that opposite party no.4 and 6 are represented, the application for recall of the abatement being I.A. No. 7 of 2025 is allowed. I.A. No. 06 of 2025 is dismissed.
4. Heard learned counsels for the parties.
5. The present petition has been filed challenging the judgment and order dated 19.05.2015, whereby the S.C.C. suit preferred by the respondents against the petitioners was decreed as well as the revisional order dated 22.08.2019, whereby the S.C.C. revision preferred was also dismissed.
6. The facts in brief are that, the respondent claiming himself to be the landlord, served a notice of eviction against the petitioner and, thereafter, preferred the suit for rent and ejectment. In the said suit, it was alleged that the plaintiff was the owner of the property in question of which, the petitioners were tenant at the rate of Rs. 50/- per month and no rent has been paid since 1978, as such, a notice was served on 11.08.1982 for rent and ejectment.
7. In the written statement filed, one of the defence taken by the petitioner was that, the landlord has got his name mutated wrongly over land no. 35, he also denied that there was a relationship of landlord and tenant in between the plaintiff and defendant. Based upon the pleadings in between the parties, the J.S.C. Court framed as many as 06 points of determination. The first three points pertains to the relationship of landlord and tenant, whether the landlord was entitled for decree of eviction and whether the landlord was entitled for a decree of rent.
8. While deciding the said three issues together, the trial court recorded that the defendant himself has submitted in para no. 14 of the written statement that the property in question was situate on land no. 34 and 35, the trial court after analyzing the documents with regard to the ownership recorded over property no. 35 over which, the property in question was situate and based upon the evidence, which is in the form of document 20-C/1 showing that the name of the landlord was recorded in the land record as owner. The trial court also analyzed the oral evidence from the testimonies and held that the relationship of landlord and tenant was established. The trial court also took into account the fact that the tenant, petitioner herein had pleaded that there were no written agreement and it was held that merely because there was no written agreement, it could not be believed that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant, as such, the said three issues were decided in favour of the plaintiff.
9. The issue no.4 with regard to the maintainability of the proceedings mainly on the bar created by virtue of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, the said submission was also repelled.
10. The specific plea taken by the petitioner that, in view of the bar created by virtue of Section 23 of the J.S.C.C. Act, the suit had to be sent before appropriate court, the court repelled the said submission by recording that the name of the plaintiff was recorded and was admitted by the defendant. Based upon the said, the suit in question was decreed. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred revision, the revisional court after hearing the parties, determined two points for objection as were raised before the revisional court, the revisional court also held that the name of the landlord was recorded and no steps were taken by the tenant for getting his name recorded. The revisional court also held that the oral evidence on record, fairly establish the relationship of landlord and tenant. The revisional court also repelled the arguments that the suit ought to have been relegated to the civil court under Section 23 of the J.S.C.C. Act.
11. Assailing the said two judgments, counsel for the petitioners argues that admittedly, there was no tenancy agreement in between the parties and the relationship of landlord and tenant had to be established by the landlord. It is further argued that the evidence led was of a chance witness that too were deposed with regard to tenancy, which according to him, was sometime 10 years ago. It is further argued that the deposition was filed by the Power of Attorney and the landlord never came to the witness box.
12. Considering the said submissions, primafacie, the relationship of landlord and tenant was established by the oral testimonies on record, merely because there was no written agreement. The suit would not be made for landlord to establish the relationship of landlord and tenant, once the evidences on record and has been appreciated, no material could be demonstrated that the appreciation of evidence was perverse or contrary to the evidence.
13. The other submission, with regard to the power of attorney holder deposing on behalf of the plaintiff, is also liable to be rejected, as there is no absolute bar for the power of attorney holder to depose except with regard to the facts which are only in the personal knowledge of the landlord. Based upon the said, there is no reason for this Court to interfere of the findings of fact recorded by both the courts below.
14. The petition lacks merits and is, accordingly, dismissed.
15. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioners requests that some reasonable time be granted to vacate the premises.
16. Considering the said submission, the petitioners are granted six months' time to vacate the premises, subject to the petitioners execute an undertaking in the form of written affidavit before the Small Causes Court within a period of three weeks from today, undertaking to vacate the premises on or before 31st January, 2026 and to handover the physical and vacant possession to the landlord and to no one else.
17. In the event of petitioners failing to file such an undertaking, the benefit of six months shall not be extended to them and the decree shall be executed forthwith.
Order Date :- 11.8.2025
Praveen
