RAFAT ALI KHAN Vs. D J BANDS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) R. H. Zaidi, J. The present petition arises out of the S. C. C. Suit No. 20 of 1978 and is directed against the judgment and order dated 7-5-1981 passed by the respondent No. 1 in exercise of revisional power conferred upon him under Section 25 of the Small Cause Courts Act. 2 Petitioner filed the said suit for ejectment of respondent No. 3 from the shop situated in Mohalla Mardan-naka Kotwali Road, Banda. It was pleaded by the petitioner that respondent No 3 was a tenant from 1-1-1975 on monthly rent of Rs. 60 + Rs. 5 towards electricity charges. The respondent No. 3 did not pay rent from 1-11-1976 and also caused damage to the shop in question, therefore, a notice of demand and termination of tenancy was served upon him on 9-2-1978. The respondent No. 3 failed to pay arrear of rent and to vocate the shop in dispute, therefore, the said suit was filed. The respondent No. 3 was also liable to ejectment on the ground of denial of title of the petitioner. 3. The suit was contested by the respondent No. 3 who has denied the relationship of landlord and tenant between him and the petitioner. He claimed that he was inoccupation of the shop in question as licencee of Nagar Palika since 1989 and not as the tenant of the petitioner. He also referred to the litigation in Civil Court between Abdul Majid and Smt. Noor Bano. He also claimed that there was an agreement entered into between him and Smt. Noor Bano in respect of the shop in dispute on the basis of which he himself constructed the said shop and was in possession of the same in his own right and that the suit was filed by the petitioner with wrong allegations and the same was liable to be dismissed. 4. The trial court after hearing the parties and perusal of the record, categorical findings on various issues involved in the case. It was held that there existed relationship of landlord and the tenant between the petitioner and respondent No. 3. The said respondent was in-occupation of the shop in question as a tenant on a monthly rent of Rs. 60. It was also held that the petitioner had every right to institute the suit and rent since 1-11-1976 in respect of the shop in question was outsanding against the said respondent. It was also held that in spite of service of the notice of demand and termi nation of tenancy upon the respondent No. 3, he failed to pay arrears of rent within thirty days, consequently, he was a defaulter within the meaning and term used under Section 20 (a) of U. P. Act No 13 of 1972. On the legal and technical relevant issues the findings were recorded by the trial court in favour of the petitioner. 5. Having recorded that said findings, which are based on relevant evidence on the record, the suit filed by the petitioner was decreed by the trial court by its judgment and decree dated 10-11-1979. 6. Respondent No. 3 aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the Judge Small Cause Court filed S. C. C. Revision No. 31 of 1979 before the respondent No. 1. The respondent No. 1 reversed the findings recorded by the trial court and was pleased to allow the. revision by his judgment and order dated 7-5- 1991. As stated above Shri Rafat Ali Khan, the landlord of the shop io question has approached this Court and filed the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the validity of the said order. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also have perused the record of the case. Shri G. N. Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that findings recorded by the trial court were all findings of fact which were based on relevant evidence on record. It was, therefore, not open to the respondent No. 1 in exercise of its powers under Section 25 of Provincial Small Cause Court Act to re- appraise the evidence and to reverse the findings of fact recorded by the trial court. In support of his contention he has placed reliance upon the following cases:- 1. M/s. Gur Narain Jagat Narain & Co. , Lucknow v. M/s. Motor and General Sales Ltd. Lucknow & others, 1980 ALJ 509.

(2.) SMT. Vidyawati Devi v. Tulsi Ram Saxena, 1979 ALJ 452.