HARI KISHAN AGARWAL Vs. SHANTI DEVI SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision is directed against the order passed by the learned 1st Addl. District Judge, Moradabad directing the return of the plaint of the suit for presentation to the proper court.

(2.) THE applicant was the defendant in a suit filed by the plaintiff opposite party for eviction of the former from certain premises. THE plaint case was that the defendant was the tenant of the plaintiff. THE defendant fell in arrears of rent amounting to Rs. 6300/- which he did not pay despite the notice of demand. It has also been asserted by the plaintiff that the defendant no. 1 sublet a portion thereof to the defendant no. 2. Accordingly the plaintiff determined the tenancy of the defendant no. 1 and brought the present suit for ejectment and recovery of arrears of rent and house tax etc. THE suit was defended by the applicant. He denied the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and also asserted that the contract of tenancy was void in-as-much as there was no order of allotment. THE court below exercising the powers of Small Causes Court accepted the plea of the plaintiff opposite party regarding the contract of tenancy but held that as there was no order of allotment the contract of tenancy was void and unenforceable at law. That being so, the court below concluded that it had no jurisdiction to try the suit. Accordingly, the court below directed the plaint to be returned for presentation to the proper court.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the defendant applicant, however placed strong reliance on the decision of the learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Devi Dutta Sharma v. Teg Singh, reported in 1979 ALJ 1086 in support of his contention that the court below having found that the case set up by the plaintiff opposite party in the plaint was wrong should have dismissed the suit and not directed the plaint to be returned for being presented before the court having jurisdiction.