NANHEY Vs. HARISH CHANDRA GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri A.K. Gupta, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Sri K.M. Garg, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent.

(2.) By means of present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner-tenant has challenged the order dated 7th August, 2004, passed by the revisional Court, copy whereof is annexed as Annexure-'2' to the writ petition, whereby the revision under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act filed by the landlord-respondent was allowed by the revisional Court and set aside the judgment and order of the lower Court.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the petitioner-tenant argued that the view taken by the revisional Court that the service of notice upon one of the joint tenant cannot be held to be sufficient for all the joint tenants. Admittedly, the notice has not been served on all the joint tenants. The revisional Court while allowing the revision has relied upon a decision of the Apex Court reported in 1989 (2) ARC, Page 26 (SC) H.C. Pandey v. G.C. Paul. I do not see, nor any such thing could be pointed out by learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner-tenant for a different view than what has been taken by the revisional Court. So far as the question of maintainability of the suit is concerned, the revisional Court's view cannot be said to be suffered from any error of law, wherein the revisional Court has held that the suit is maintainable before the Judge Small Causes Court. In this view of the matter, I find that no ground is made out for interference by this Court in exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. This writ petition therefore, has no force and is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed.