PHEKU SETH Vs. OM PRAKASH AND 3 OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri B.S. Rathore learned counsel for the petitioner. Sri Janardan Singh has filed caveat on behalf of the respondents but even in the revised list he does not appear.

(2.) This writ petition is directed against the order dated 30.01.2013 passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Mau in SCC Suit No. 01 of 2005 (Om Prakash and others Vs. Pheku Seth) as also the revisional order dated 17.07.2013 passed by the District Judge, Mau whereby the Revision No. 11 of 2013 (Om Prakash and others Vs. Pheku) connected with Revision No. 28 of 2013 (Pheku Vs. Om Prakash and others) had been dismissed.

(3.) Learned counsel states that by the impugned judgement and order of the Trial Court the claim of the plaintiff respondent for arrears of rent has been refused but the suit has been decreed for eviction of the petitioner defendant. According to him the said order is illegal for the reason that the plaintiff respondent had obtained a sale deed dated 04.01.1999 and 17.04.1999 relating to the shop in dispute but the relationship of landlord and tenant never existed since no rent was paid by the defendant petitioner to the plaintiff respondent. He submits that in view of the aforesaid the plaintiff respondent was not entitled to a decree of eviction against the defendant petitioner. He states that the revisional court has also committed the same illegality and hence the orders impugned are liable to be set aside.