LAWS(ALL)-2012-8-198

SANGAM LAL YADAV Vs. BRAHM SWARUP TIWARI

Decided On August 13, 2012
Sangam Lal Yadav Appellant
V/S
Brahm Swarup Tiwari Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Dhruv Narayan, Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri R.C. Singh, for the petitioner. None has put in appearance on behalf of respondents though names of Sri Alok Ranjan Mishra and Sri R.N. Upadhyaya, Advocates have been shown in the cause list. Firstly, it is contended that there was a serious title dispute between the parties and therefore, by virtue of section 23 of Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887 (hereinafter referred to as "Act, 1887"), plaint ought to have been returned by Trial Court. In summary proceedings, title dispute could not have been determined. Secondly, it is contended that at no point of time petitioner paid rent to the plaintiff-respondent and hence there existed no relationship of tenant and landlord hence also the impugned orders are liable to be set aside. Reliance is placed on Smt. Sughra Begum v. Additional District Judge XIIth, Lucknow, 2000 38 AllLR 24; Iqbal Ahmad v. VIth Addl. District Judge, Varanasi,, 1999 37 AllLR 176; Harnam Singh v. District Judge, Lalitpur,2001 43 AllLR 274 and Munshi Khan v. District Judge, Ghaziabad,2002 48 AllLR 424.

(2.) The facts in brief giving rise to the present dispute are as under:

(3.) This dispute relates to House No. 85, Sohbatiabagh, Allahabad City (hereinafter referred to as "disputed building"). A suit was filed by Brahm Swarup Tiwari (now deceased and substituted by legal heirs) i.e., S.C.C. Suit No. 423 of 1980 claiming himself to be owner and landlord of disputed building. He alleged that Late Suraj Bali Tiwari was owner of disputed building. He died on 21st October, 1979. Before his death, a Will was executed in favour of Brahm Swarup Tiwari (respondent No. 1 now deceased), on 15.10.1979, by virtue whereof he became owner of disputed building after the death of Suraj Bali Tiwari. It was also alleged that there was no other legal heir of Suraj Bali Tiwari. He (Suraj Bali Tiwari) was the real uncle of plaintiff-respondent No. 1 hence also disputed building was succeeded by him.