SYED SHAHID HUSAIN Vs. MUSHAHID ALI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ANJANI Kumar, J. This is a writ petition under Article 226 of the Con stitution of India by the petitioner-plain tiff who is aggrieved by an order dated 24-1-2004 passed by the revisional Court whereby the revisional Court al lowed the revision filed by the respon dent-tenant by setting aside the decree passed by the Court of Small Causes dated 18th October 2000 and dis missed the suit fhed by the petitioner.

(2.) THE petitioner filed a suit age Jnst the defendant before the Small Cause Court for recovery of arrears of rent and ejectment of the defendant-respondent on the ground that the tenant has defaulted in payment of rent. THErefore, the tenancy was terminated by serving the notice under Section 106 of Transfer of Property Act on the petitioner-tenant asking to vacate the premises and pay the arrears. THE defendant neither made payment nor vacated the premises. Thus the plaintiff filed the suit aforesaid. THE defendant-respondent denied the allegations made in the plaint and set up the case that there is no relationship of landlord and tenant between the plaintiff and defendant. Thus suit is not maintainable. On the hearing of the parties the trial Court for mulated following questions to be decided: (1) Whether the defendant is tenant of the accommodation in dispute? (2) Whether the defendant has defaulted in payment of rent? If so, what is its effect? (3) Whether defendant is in arrears of rent and the plaintiff is entitled for arrears and damages. If so, what amount? (4) Whether the defendant is liable for ejectment? (5) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for any relief? If so, to what relief?

(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the respon dent has further relied upon a single Judge decision of this Court reported in 1988 (1) ARC 521, Karim Ulla v. IIIrd Addl. District. Judge; Allahabad and Ors. , wherein the aforesaid Division Bench decision has been considered by the Single Judge and the learned Single Judge in paragraph 12 has ruled as under: "no re-assessment of the evidence was required and, as such from the principles laid down-by this Hon'ble Court in the case of Lakshmi Kishore and Anr. v. Har Prasad Shukla (supra) a well as in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Jagdish Prasad v. Smt. Angoori Devi (supra), the Revisional Court was justified in reversing the finding of the Judge Small Cause Court in regard to the relationship of landlord and tenant. Since no re-assessment of the evidence was required, it would not be necessary to remand the case. In the cir cumstances, the submission made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, in my opinion, is without substance. "