GOPAL JI Vs. BIPIN KUMAR AGARWAL AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By means of this revision, the revisionist has challenged the order dated 5.2.2015 by which his application under Order 21, Rule 98, C.P.C. has been rejected.

(2.) Brief facts of the present case are that one Bipin Kumar Agarwal admitted to tenancy Sri. Awadhesh Kumar Kesharwani, at 88 Zero Road, Allahabad. Bipin Kumar agarwal instituted a suit for eviction of Awadhesh Kumar Kesharwani being SCC Suit No. 8 of 2001. In the said suit Awadhesh Kumar Kesharwani filed his written statement and in the written statement, it has been stated that one Gopal Ji i.e. the reivisionist, was also tenant in the said premises. The premises is said to be a four doors shop. Three doors were admitted by Awadhesh Kumar Kesharwani is in his possession and one door was stated to be in Gopal Ji's possession. The suit was contested by Awadhesh Kumar Kesharwani and ultimately a decree of eviction was passed on 12.1.2012 directing Awadhesh Kumar Kesharwani, defendant to vacate the premises. For execution of the aforesaid decree, the plaintiff Bipin Kumar Agarwal instituted an execution case bearing Case No. 5 of 2012. After the decree dated 12.1.2012, it appears that Gopal Ji, the revisionist filed an application under order 21 Rule 97 C.P.C. stating therein that he is third party in interest in possession of the portion of the shop in question and has an independent right with that of the defendant. The court below while considering the claim of the revisionist rejected the application holding that no material has been brought forward to indicate that he was a person in interest in the property in his own right to resist the delivery of possession to Bipin Kumar Agarwal. The sole material that was filed by Gopal Ji in his application under Order 21 Rule 98 C.P.C. was the averments made in the written statement filed by Awadhesh Kumar Kesharwani in the SCC Suit, by which it was stated that in one portion of the shop Gopal Ji is also a tenant. Secondly, it was stated that Gopal Ji was paying rent to Surendra Gupta. It is not disputed between the parties that Bipin Kumar Agarwal and Surendra Gupta are not in any manner related to each other. The second contention was with regard to the photocopy of electricity bill and sales tax registration certificate to press the claim that Gopal Ji is in possession of the property in question. Apart from these three material there was nothing to prove to the court below that at any point of time, Gopal Ji had any independent right of any manner over the property in question.

(3.) It is to be noted that the suit was filed in the year 2001 and from the averments made in the revision, Gopal Ji is claiming tenancy in the said property since 1998, but the electricity bill or connection is of 2003, which is after filing of the suit. The court below upon consideration of the aforesaid material has come to the conclusion that by the aforesaid documents, it is not proved conclusively that the revisionist has any independent right of its own over the the property in question and rejected the application.