MOHSIN RAZA Vs. HOOR JAHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The tenant-revisionist has filed this revision under section 25 of the Provincial Small Causes Courts Act assailing the judgment and decree dated 08.01.2015 passed by the Additional District Judge, Court No.3, Lucknow in SCC Suit No.46 of 2013, whereby the suit has been decreed and the tenant-revisionist has been directed to vacate the premises in question within two months and also pay the arrears of rent @? Rs.500/- per month with effect from 01.04.2010 to 31.03.2012 within the aforesaid period of two months. The tenant-revisionist has further been directed to pay damages @ Rs.500/- per month with effect from 01.04.2012 till the date of delivery of possession.

(2.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

(3.) The tenant-revisionist has challenged the impugned judgment and decree mainly on the ground that there exists no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties, but the learned court below has totally ignored this important aspect of the matter. The learned court below had no jurisdiction to pass a decree for eviction or recovery of arrears of rent in respect of a person who is not a tenant. The learned court below has also erred in holding that notice under section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act was served upon the tenant-revisionist. It was an admitted fact that an agreement to sell was executed between the parties and the opposite party also accepted a sum of Rs.10,000/- as advanced from the tenant-revisionist. It has also been ignored by the learned court below that the tenant-revisionist has been residing in the premises in question since last about 35 years and the house in question was constructed by the tenant-revisionist himself. Thus, the learned court below has not correctly appreciated the evidence on record and as such the decree for recovery of arrears of rent and eviction passed by the court below against the tenant-revisionist is a nullity and is liable to be set aside.?