Ajay Kumar Arora vs Munish Chandra
2025 Latest Caselaw 9233 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Ajay Kumar Arora vs Munish Chandra on 27 August, 2025

Author: Pankaj Bhatia

Bench: Pankaj Bhatia

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:50676
 

 
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
LUCKNOW
 
S.C.C. REVISION No. - 27 of 2024
 
Court No. - 6
 
HON'BLE PANKAJ BHATIA, J.

(Order on I.A. No. 15 of 2023)

1. This application has been filed seeking recall of the order dated 11.08.2023.

2. Cause shown is sufficient.

3. The application is allowed and the order dated 11.08.2023 is recalled.

4. The revision is restored to its original file and number.

(Order on Revision)

1. Heard Shri Ratnesh Chandra, learned counsel for the revisionist as well as Shri Sudhanshu Chauhan, learned counsel for the respondent on merits and perused the material brought on record.

2. The present revision has been filed by the revisionist challenging the judgment and order dated 12.05.2008, whereby the S.C.C. Suit filed by the respondent-landlord was allowed and a decree of ejectment along with arrears of rent was passed against the revisionist.

3. During the pendency of the revision, the revision was dismissed in default sometime in the year 2013 and was subsequently restored by filing the restoration application, a supplementary affidavit was filed by the revisionist stating that during the pendency of the revision, on the basis of oral agreement in between the parties, amount of approximately Rs. 22 lacs, out of which, Rs. 6.5 lacs was paid through banking channels and, thus, the relationship of the landlord and tenant ended on the tendering of the said amount and receiving thereof by the respondent-landlord. The said facts were duly reflected in the order dated 01.12.2021 passed by this Court, wherein, the order dismissing the revision for want of prosecution passed on 08.08.2013 was recalled.

4. In the light of the said, submission of counsel for the revisionist is that, in view of the subsequent developments, as noticed by this Court in its order dated 01.12.2021, the relationship of landlord and tenant has come to an end. Admittedly, there is no agreement in between the parties with regard to the sale of the property, similarly, there is no sale deed executed in favour of the revisionist, the only claim with regard to the deposits of Rs. 6.5 lacs given by the revisionist to the respondent and are included in the supplementary affidavit, it is attempted to argue that on the basis of the subsequent development which includes the communication in between the parties, the same as all the trappings of an agreement to sell/sale deed and, thus, in view of the subsequent development, the relationship of landlord and tenant, no more exists and, thus, the revision is liable to be allowed on that ground alone.

5. It is further argued that the findings recorded by the J.S.C. Court with regard to the material alteration allegedly carried out during the pendency of the S.C.C. suit, also merit interference in as much as, the same were carried out with the permission of the landlord and sometime in the year 1991 on payment of certain amounts.

6. It is further argued that all the materials to demonstrate that there was no default in payment of water tax and sever tax and despite the same being on record, the trial court has wrongly returned the finding on the said issues framed as point no.6 and 7.

7. Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, argues that, no agreement to sell/sale deed was ever executed in between the parties and the oral agreement has been cited by the counsel for the revisionist, cannot partake the characteristic of an agreement to sell or a sale deed. He argues that even if for the sake of arguments, the oral agreement is believed to be true, the same would not change the status of the revisionist as a tenant till the time sale deed or any other instrument of conveyance is executed in between the parties, which according to him, are absent. He, however, admits the receipt of the amount of Rs. 6.5 lacs, which according to him was towards the payment of the outstanding rent since 2008.

8. He also justifies the findings of fact recorded by the trial court with regard to disfiguring the property as well as, default in payment of sewer tax and water tax, as recorded by the trial court.

9. Considering the submissions made at the bar, this Court cannot go into the fact that the present revision has been filed under Section 25 of the Small Causes Courts Act and is confined to errors in appreciation of evidence or any errors, which can be discerned from the impugned judgment.

10. From perusal of the orders passed by the J.S.C. Court, it is clear that based upon, the rival contentions as many as 08 points of determination were framed by the J.S.C. Court. While dealing with issue nos. 1, 2 and 3, which related to the disfiguring of the property by constructing stairs, the J.S.C. Court, meticulously examined the deposition of P.W.-1 as well as, the position of defence witnesses, whereas it was recorded that the stair case was constructed sometime in the year 1991, the Court noticed the inconsistencies in the pleadings in the written statement and the evidences adduced during the time of the trial court. The court finally recorded its finding based upon the appreciation of evidence that no permission was granted by the landlord and the contention of the defendant that the same were done on the basis of permission granted by the landlord were disbelieved.

The court held that the raising of constructions amounts to disfiguring and damaging the building which has resulted in diminishing the value, the court also disbelieved that some payment of Rs. 30,000/- was paid which could not be established before the J.S.C. Court concerned. While returning finding on point nos.4, 6 and 7, the J.S.C. Court held that in the absence of any agreement, the rent would not include water and sewer tax, which is to be paid mandatorily in terms of Section 7 of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972, the plea of the tenant that the rent included water tax and sever tax, was repelled and rightly so in view of the mandate of Section 7 of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972.

11. In view of the said findings of fact with regard to disfiguring the property and default in payment of water tax and sewer tax, no interference is called for by this Court as, nothing could be pointed out by the revisionist that, the rent agreed in between the parties included water tax and sever tax.

12. Reverting to the third argument that during the pendency of the revision, the amounts were paid, out of which, Rs. 6.5 lacs were paid through cheque and, thus, the relationship of landlord and tenant vanished, the said contention, deserves to be rejected for the sole reason that for claiming any ownership right over the property, it is incumbent that either an agreement to sell be executed or a sale deed as prescribed in the Transfer of Property Act be executed before a person can lay claim over the property as the owner of the property.

In the absence of any material coupled with the fact that there is a dispute that the amount of Rs. 6.5 lacs conveyance was paid towards satisfaction of the outstanding rent, all these issues cannot be gone at the revisional stage. Even if, the contention of the revisionist is accepted for the sake of arguments that on the basis of some oral understanding, the amounts of Rs. 6.5 lacs through cheques and other amounts allegedly in cash, the same would not change the status of the revisionist from that of tenant.

13. In view thereof, no good ground for interference is made out.

14. The revision lacks merit and is, accordingly, dismissed.

August 27, 2025

Praveen