SABHA JEET SINGH Vs. ADDL DISTRICT JUDGE VARANASI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE landlord has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution to assail the judgment and order dated 29th May, 2007 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Varanasi.

(2.) THE landlord filed SCC Suit No. 52 of 2000 before the learned Judge, small Cause Courts against the tenant for eviction and recovery of arrears of rent and damages. It was inter alia stated that the defendant was the tenant of two shops on monthly rent of Rs. 600/ -. A notice dated 18th January, 2000 was sent to the tenant by registered post under section 106 of the Transfer of Property act (hereinafter referred to as the "act' ). This notice was duly served upon the tenant. However, even though the tenancy was terminated after a period of thirty days in accordance with the provisions of section 106 of the Act, the tenant did not vacate the premises and nor did he pay the arrears of rent. The suit was accordingly filed. The Trial Court decreed the suit by the judgment and order dated 27th November, 2004. The tenant filed a Revision under section 25 of the Small Cause Courts Act, 1887. The Revisional Court has remanded the matter to the Trial Court to decide whether the notice sent under section 106 of the act was actually served upon the tenant and whether it was a tenancy from month to month.

(3.) SRI Sanjeev Singh, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the tenant in paragraph "6' of the Written Statement clearly admitted that it was a month to month tenancy and, therefore, the Revisional Court committed an illegality in remanding the matter to the Trial Court. He further submitted that in this connection the Revisional Court has relied upon the evidence of the power of attorney holder but such evidence could not have been taken into consideration in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in janki vashdeo Bhojwani and others v. Indusind Bank Ltd. and others, 2005 58 ALR (SC) 440. He also submitted that the notice under section 106 of the Act had been duly served upon the tenant and evidence in this regard had been filed and, therefore, there was no occasion for remanding the matter to the Trial Court.