ANOOP KUMAR Vs. ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY means of this writ petition, moved under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has sought quashing of judgment and decree dated 14.6.2001 passed by the respondent No. 1 in SCC revision No. 47 of 1994 whereby revision is allowed and S.C.C. suit No. 55 of 1986 instituted by petitioner is dismissed.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case, as narrated in the writ petition, are that the petitioner is the owner and landlord of shop No. 11/311 (24 -26) situated at G.B. Pant Marg, Haldwani, District Nainital. The said shop was purchased by the petitioner through a sale deed dated 27.11.1982 from one Rabindra Shamsher Jung. Initially one Tasleem Ahmed was the tenant in the shop in question who died in the year 1974 leaving behind hid widow and daughter (respondent No. 6 and 7 respectively) as heris. The said two respondents inherited the tenancy. The rate of rent was Rs. 250 p.a. They committed default in payment of rent and also illegally sub -let the shop to respondent No. 3 to 5. As such the petitioner, terminating the tenancy of the respondent Nos. 6 and 7 instituted a suit before the Judge Small Causes Court, Haldwani which was registered as S.C.C. suit No. 55 of 1986 Anoop Kumar v. Shakoor Ahamed and Ors. Respondent No. 3 to 5 got themselves impleaded in the suit and filed their separate written statement alleging that they were joint tenants with Tasleem Ahmed in the shop in question. It is further stated by the respondent No. 3 to 5 in their written statement before trial Court that after the death of Tasleem Ahmed they are running business in the shop in question in the name and style M/s Kiran Bangle Store. Learned trial Court after recording the evidence and hearing the parties, decided the suit with the findings that respondents No. 6 and 7 have sub -let the premises to respondents No. 3 to 5 unauthorizedly and accordingly decreed the suit for eviction. However, giving protection of Section 20 (4) of Act 13 of 1972, no default was treated as a ground for eviction as the respondents deposited all the rent claimed with costs and interest. Aggrieved by the judgment and order passed by Judge Small Causes Court, Haldwani, respondent No. 3 filed a revision under Section 25 of Provincial Small Causes Courts Act, before the District Judge, Nainital which was registered as SCC Revision No. 47 of 94 - Salim Uddin v. Anoop Kumar and Ors. Learned Additional District Judge, First Fast Track Court, Nainital (Respondent No. 1) after hearing the parties, passed judgment and decree dated 14.6.2001 whereby the revision was allowed with the finding that the respondent No. 3 to 7 were not sub -lessee as their tenancy stood regularized and the rent was being accepted from them by the previous owner and landlord. Consequently, the suit was dismissed by the revisional Court. Aggrieved by which this petition has been filed by the landlord, petitioner challenging the same on various grounds including that the revisional court had no power to set aside the findings of the trial Court, relating to subletting. It is further alleged in the writ petition that the Revisional Court has ignored even admission of respondent Nos. 6 and 7 that they surrendered the tenancy. It is also alleged, occupation if any, with the respondent Nos. 3 to 5 in the shop in question was not with the consent of the owner and landlord as such the same could not have been regularized. It is also alleged that the respondent No. 1 has allowed the revision without any proof of rent being paid by the respondents to the landlord -owner.

(3.) I heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the affidavit, counter affidavit and rejoinder affidavit alongwith the annexures annexed thereto.