REGENT COMPUTRONICS PVT. LTD.

ABID KHAN Appellant

V/S

Smt. Maya Devi Respondents

Referred Judgements :-

BUDDHU MAL V. MAHABIR PRASAD [REFERRED TO]
MAJATI SUBBARAO V. P.V.K. KRISHNA RAOL [REFERRED TO]
TRANSMISSION CORPORATION OF A.P. LTD. V. P. SURYA BHAGAVAN [REFERRED TO]
DHULABHAI VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH VS. THUMMALA KRISHNA RAO:BANDI VENKATARAMA RAO:VALLURI KESAVA RAO [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA VS. RAMDAS SHRINIVAS NAYAK [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF TAMIL NADU VS. RAMALINGA SAMIGAL MADAM:K L M RAMAMURTHY [REFERRED TO]
RAMESHWAR DAYAL VS. BANDA DEAD [REFERRED TO]
ABDUL AZIZ VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF RAJASTHAN VS. HARPHOOL SINGH DEAD [REFERRED TO]
SHAMIM AKHTAR VS. IQBAL AHMAD [REFERRED TO]
MOHD AKRAM ANSARI VS. CHIEF ELECTION OFFICER [REFERRED TO]
NIRMAL JEET SINGH HOON VS. IRTIZA HUSSAIN [REFERRED TO]
RAM CHANDRA PANDEY VS. MAHESHWARI SINGH [REFERRED TO]
MANZURUL HAQ VS. HAKIM MOHSIN ALI [REFERRED TO]
BASHIR AHMAD VS. IST ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE SAHARANPUR [REFERRED TO]
SHRIMATI DEVI VS. IVTH A D J [REFERRED TO]
RAM ASHERE SAVITA VS. IIND A D J [REFERRED TO]
KAILASH CHANDRA GUPTA VS. SUBHASH CHANDRA GUPTA [REFERRED TO]
RAM SEVAK VS. PRAMOD KUMAR [REFERRED TO]
GIRJA SHANKER VS. KRISHNA KUMAR JAISWAL [REFERRED TO]
RAMJI GUPTA VS. GOPI KRISHAN AGRAWAL [REFERRED TO]
Punet Kumar Agrawal VS. Jhunjhunwala Charity Trust [REFERRED TO]

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Ramendra Asthana, learned counsel for the revisionist-defendant/tenant and Sri Pramod Srivastava, learned counsel for the respondent-plaintiff/landlady.

(2.) This revision under Sec. 25 of the Provincial Small Causes Courts Act, 1887 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), has been filed praying to set aside the order dated 26.05.2017 in S.C.C. Case No.14 of 2012 passed by the Court of Additional District Judge, Court No.9, Agra whereby Application-118C filed by the revisionist-defendant/tenant under Sec. 23 of the Act was rejected and the objection of the respondent herein being Paper No.120-C was accordingly disposed of.

(3.) Sri Ramendra Asthana, learned counsel for the revisionist-defendant/ tenant submits that one Sri Ghurelal was the owner-landlord of the disputed property/ house No.11/116A/6 built on the part of khasra plot No.196, village Chak Haphtam, Tehsil Etmadpur, Agra, of which the revisionist herein was the tenant. The respondent herein was neither owner nor landlord of the aforesaid property but she filed S.C.C. Case No.14 of 2012 for eviction and recovery of rent. Since the dispute involved question of title and as such the plaint was liable to be returned under Sec. 23 of the Act. However, by the impugned order, the Court below rejected the Application-118C in an arbitrary manner. He, therefore, submits that the Revision deserves to be allowed and the impugned order dated 26.05.2017 deserves to be set aside. In support of his submission, he relied upon a judgment in the case of Buddhu Mal Vs. Mahabir Prasad and others, 1988 AWC 1057 S.C. (para-10) and the judgment in the case of Kailash Chandra Gupta Vs. Subhash Chandra Gupta, 2009 (2) ARC 829 (paras-6).

Click here to view full judgment.

ABID KHAN Vs. SMT. MAYA DEVI

Referred Judgements :-

JUDGEMENT

QUick Links

Get in Touch

Email

Contact Numbers

Address