HARISH CHANDRA Vs. RAHUL KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Dharmendra Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the defendant/ petitioner and Sri Syed Irfan Ali, holding brief of Sri Ajit Kumar, learned counsel for the plaintiff/ respondent.

(2.) Briefly stated facts of the present case are that the plaintiff/ respondent is the owner and landlord of a shop situate at B-Das Compound, G.T. Road, Aligarh in which the defendant/ petitioner is a tenant. After following due procedure of law, a S.C.C. Case No. 92 of 2006 was filed by the plaintiff/ respondent on 22.12.2006 praying for eviction of the defendant/ petitioner and recovery of rent. In para 3 of the plaint, the plaintiff/ respondent took the stand that the disputed shop is newly constructed and the provisions of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 are not applicable. The evidence of plaintiff/ respondent was closed on 03.08.2012. However, on 07.05.2013 the plaintiff/ respondent submitted an application being Paper No. 76-C filing certified copy of Tax Assessment Register of Nagar Nigam, Aligarh to establish that the disputed shop is newly constructed and the provisions of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 are not applicable. The said application was rejected by the Additional Judge, Small Causes Court, Aligarh vide order dated 15.05.2013 on the ground that Paper No. 76-C has been filed belatedly while the case is listed for final hearing. Against the aforesaid order dated 15.05.2013 the plaintiff/ respondent filed S.C.C. Revision No. 22 of 2013 (Rahul Kumar Vs. Sri Harish Chandra) which has been allowed by the impugned order dated 03.05.2017 passed by the court of Additional District Judge, Court No. 8, Aligarh. Aggrieved with this order, the defendant/ petitioner has filed the present petition under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India.

(3.) In the impugned order, the revising authority recorded a finding that the document being paper no. 76-C filed by the plaintiff/ respondent is a relevant document for determination of the question as to whether the provisions of Act No. 13 of 1972 shall be applicable or not. He further observed that for the delay in filing the said evidence may be compensated by imposition of cost. Consequently, the revision was allowed on a cost of Rs. 2,000.00 and the order dated 15.05.2013 passed by the learned Additional Judge, Small Causes Court was set aside.