BABU RAM Vs. VTH ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) INSPITE of service no one has appeared on behalf of landlord respondent No. 2. It appears that as the matter relates only to recovery of past arrears of rent, hence landlord is not much interested. Landlord respondent No. 2 filed S.C.C. suit No. 72 of 980 against tenant petitioner for possession and recovery of arrears of rent claiming that the rate of rent was Rs. 25/ - per month. Tenant pleaded that the rate of rent was Rs. 7/ - per month. The Trial Court held that the rate of rent was Rs. 7/ - and not Rs. 25/ - per month. Tenant had deposited the entire arrears of rent etc. on the first date of hearing at the rate of rent of Rs. 7/ - per month hence suit was dismissed for eviction. Landlord was held entitled to withdraw the amount deposited by the tenant in the suit. The Trial Court decided the suit on 20.1.1983. Against judgment and decree dated 20.1.1983 landlord filed revision being S.C.C. Revision No. 36 of 1983. Revisional Court/Vth A.D.J. Shahjahanpur reversed the finding of fact regarding rate of rent recorded by the Trial Court and after reassessment of the entire evidence held that the rate of rent was Rs. 25/ - per month. However, it appears that during the pendency of revision tenant had vacated the premises in dispute. The Revisional Court therefore decreed the suit for recovery of arrears of rent at the rate of Rs. 25/ - per month till delivery of possession. The last sentence of the operative portion is "Plaintiff's possessory relief stood frustrated on possession being handed over to him pendente lite."

(2.) IN view of the above it is clear that only question of arrears of rent survived and possession already stood delivered to the landlord plaintiff.

(3.) ACCORDINGLY writ petition is allowed.