PARVEZ ALAM ALIAS IMRAN Vs. DISTRICT JUDGE VARANASI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ANJANI Kumar, J. These four connected writ petitions have been filed by four petitioners arising out of common order passed by the revisional Court on 18th May 2001 (Annexure-22) to the petition. The revisional Court has consolidated revision of four S. C. C. suits which have been decreed by Judge Small Causes Court by judgment and decree dated 27th February 2001. The petitioners, who are the tenant are aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and decree.

(2.) THE facts leading to the filing of petition are that the contesting respondents purchased four accommodations in dispute by its owner by registered sale-deed, thereafter he served notice informing them that he is the landlord. THE service of notice is not disputed. THE notice has been served by the landlord wherein it has been stated that these tenants are in arrears of rent and if they do not pay rent after receipt of notice they would be liable to be evicted. It appears that petitioners-tenant have disputed the liability of payment of rent and also right of the landlord to file ejectment suit against these four petitioners on the ground that erstwhile owner had appointed one Power of Attorney holder who collected money from these tenants for sale of the respective tenements and they are owner in their independent capacity and contesting respondent cannot evict them as there is no relationship of landlord and tenant. THE suit was filed and contested by the petitioners. THE trial Court framed issues including the issue as to whether there is a relationship of the landlord and tenant i. e. between the petitioners and contesting respondent and whether the suit is liable to be decreed as same has been filed after terminating the tenancy and others issues.

(3.) AGGRIEVED by the order of the trial Court petitioners filed revisions before the revisional Court and stated that they have additional ground but the trial Court have not afforded full opportunity to the petitioners-tenant. The revisional Court dealt with the additional ground first and recorded the findings on the order-sheet that it is not open to the petitioners-tenant to argue before the revisional Court that full opportunity was not given by the trial Court whereas from record it is apparent that full opportunity was given by the trial Court and no grievance whatsoever was raised by the petitioners. Thus, revisional Court rejected the aforesaid argument.