NIYAMATULLAH KHAN Vs. ASRAF ALI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Plaintiff-respondent has filed a suit with the allegation that he is in possession of the tenanted premises, and the defendant landlord is attempting to evict him except in accordance with law. Cause of action for filing of the suit was explained in the plaint, as having arisen on 6th July, 2011, when the defendant-appellant made an attempt to forcibly evict the plaintiff. The suit was contested by the defendant-appellant on the ground that the cause of action set up in the plaint is wholly imaginary, and in fact no such event had taken place. It was also stated that proceedings under Sec. 21 of the U.P. Act No.13 of 1972 for eviction are pending, and it is with a mala fide intent that the suit itself has been filed. Both the courts below have decreed the plaintiff's suit by holding that the plaintiff shall not be evicted except in accordance with law. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the courts below, defendant-appellant has filed the present appeal.

(2.) Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the cause of action pleaded in the suit was not established and, therefore, the decree passed by both the courts below is perverse. It is also submitted that the lower appellate court has determined the rate of rent, as being Rs. 100.00 per month, by rejecting the plea of the landlord of rent being Rs. 660.00 per month, which was wholly beyond the scope of the proceedings itself.

(3.) Having considered the submission aforesaid, this Court is of the opinion that the factum of plaintiff being a tenant has not been disbelieved. If that be so, the decree passed by the courts below that plaintiff shall not be evicted except in accordance with law, does not seem to have caused any prejudice to the defendant appellant. Defendant-appellant admittedly has initiated proceedings for eviction of the tenant in accordance with the provisions of U.P. Act No.13 of 1972, and the decree of the courts below would not stand in the way of the defendant-appellant in prosecuting his case for eviction under the Act. So far as the rate of rent is concerned, the same is for the limited purpose of consideration of the plaintiff's case, and such a finding will have no bearing in proceedings initiated by the defendant-appellant under the provisions of U.P. Act No.13 of 1972. So far as the case set up by the plaintiff of payment of Rs. 1 lac towards premium is concerned, the same has already been disbelieved by the lower appellate court. So far as the defendant's case with regard to cause of action is concerned, the finding returned by both the courts below that the cause of action had arisen to the plaintiff to file a suit, is based upon appreciation of evidence and materials available on record, which is not liable to be interfered in the present appeal.