PREM PRAKASH Vs. SMT. VIJAY RANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner aggrieved by an order dated 4 April 2015 passed by the Additional District Judge, Court No. 8, Agra in SCC Revision No. 83 of 2011, rejecting the application purportedly filed under Order 41, Rule 27 read with Sec. 151 C.P.C., has approached this Court invoking its supervisory jurisdiction under Art. 227 of the Constitution.

(2.) It transpires from the record that the plaintiff respondents instituted a suit for recovery of arrears of rent and for ejectment against the petitioner therein. The Additional Judge Small Causes Court, Agra by judgment dated 8 Sept. 2011 decreed the suit for ejectment and for arrears of rent. A specific finding has been recorded that the first date of construction of the building would be deemed to be in the year 1987 in which the building was assessed for the first time to municipal taxes. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the petitioner here had filed a revision, which is pending before Additional District Judge, Court No. 8, Agra. During the pendency of the revision, an application 25 Ga for summoning the entire record pertaining to the property from the office of Joint Housing Commissioner, Agra Zone, U.P. Awas Evam Vikas Parishad, Agra, was filed by the petitioner. It is alleged in the application that during the pendency of the revision, it came to the notice of the petitioner that the demised premises had been in existence since the year 1983 and in respect of which the landlord had taken water and electric connections in the year 1983. It is further alleged that the petitioner herein sought information from the U.P. Awas Evam Vikas Parishad under Right to Information Act, but the required information was not furnished to him by stating that such information is not available on record. In these circumstances, the application was filed for summoning the records from the office of the U.P. Awas Evam Vikas Parishad.

(3.) The revisional Court by impugned order dated 4 April 2015, has rejected the application after recording a specific finding that there is no material on record to indicate that the information furnished to the applicant defendant by the U.P. Awas Evam Vikas Parishad under Right to Information Act is factually incorrect. In these circumstances, there is no justification for summoning the record at the revisional stage.