RAM AUTAR YADAV Vs. DAYA NAND SWARUP PANDEY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff-respondent instituted a S.C.C. Suit No. 3 of 2001 before the court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Shahjahanpur for eviction and recovery of damages against the petitioner. It was alleged in the plaint that the petitioner was inducted as a licensee in the shop in dispute and the alleged licence of the petitioner was revoked by notice dated 20.2.2001 and when the petitioner did not vacate the shop, the instant suit was instituted for eviction and recovery of licence fee.

(2.) The petitioner filed a written statement and refuted the allegation of the plaintiff-respondent and claimed himself to be the tenant of the disputed premises. The parties also lead oral as well as documentary evidence in their support. The trial court by order dated 8.11.2005 dismissed the suit of the plaintiff. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said judgment and order dated 8.11.2005, the plaintiff-respondent filed a revision under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887 (in short "the Act"). The said revision was registered as S.C.C. Revision No. 52 of 2005. The lower revisional court by judgment and order dated 25.3.2009, set aside the order passed by the trial court and decreed the suit of the plaintiff-respondent. The revisional court also upheld the contention of the plaintiff-respondent that the petitioner was merely a licensee of the disputed shop. Hence, the present writ petition.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the petitioner has, inter alia, mainly argued that since the petitioner was treated as a licensee, the suit itself was not maintainable under the Act.