RAJENDRA @ KUKKU Vs. RAM KISHAN AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri M.L.Rai, learned counsel for the revisionist. Notice need not be issued to the respondents, in view of the order being passed herein.

(2.) This is a revision under Sec. 25 of the Provincial Small Causes Courts Act against the order dated 05.10.2013 passed by the Judge, Small Causes Court/Additional District Judge, Court No. 9, Meerut in Case No. 05 of 2005 (Ram Kishan and another Vs. Rajendra @ Kakku) whereby the suit of the plaintiff respondent has been decreed against the petitioner defendant for eviction and arrears of rent.

(3.) According to learned counsel for the revisionist, the revisionist has in his written statement specifically stated that he is not the tenant of the plaintiff. He had also stated that the plaintiff is not the land lord of the premises in question. According to him the court below has illegally decreed the suit of the plaintiff, which is contrary to the pleadings of the plaintiff taken in his plaint to such effect as also the oral statement given by the plaintiff before the court below. He submits that in a Suit No. 244 of 1991 (Ram Kishan @ Munna and another Vs. Murti Mahadev Shiv Mandir @ Nagababa Trust and another) a compromise was entered on 02.05.2011 between the plaintiff and defendant of that suit which indicated that the respondents herein were not the owners of the premises in question prior to 02.05.2011 hence this suit could not have been filed in the year 2005. According to him under such a compromise the respondent have obtained rights only after the decree dated 02.05.2011 and therefore, filing the instant suit in the year 2005 claiming to be the landlord it was incompetent.