SARTAZ MOHAMMAD Vs. SUMAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri M.N.Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Arvind Srivastava and Sri Anil Kumar Pandey who appears for the plaintiffs-respondents.

(2.) Petitioner is assailing the impugned order dated 9.7.2018 passed by the Additional DistrictSessions Judge, Court No. 4, Kasganj and the order dated 211.2016 passed by the Judge Small Cause Court/Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kasganj.

(3.) Sri M.N.Singh, in support of his submissions, precisely submits that the entire proceedings for eviction, arrears of rent, damages and for possession, as were instituted before the Judge Small Cause Court/Civil Judge (J.D.), Kasganj at the instance of the plaintiff/respondent, were not maintainable in view of the provisions contained under Sec. 15(2) read with Schedule 2(4) of the Provincial Small Cause Court Act, 1887. The relief had been asked for ejectment as well as possession with respect to the premise in question as such, the relief prayed by the plaintiff-respondent could not have been accorded/granted by the Judge Small Cause Court inasmuch as the same was wholly beyond the jurisdiction of the said Court. In fact, the relief of possession could only be granted under the Code of Civil Procedure before a regular civil court. It has also been submitted that at no point of time, any document was executed inter se between the parties evidencing the terms and conditions of the tenancy/lease and as such, the lease/tenancy in question being referable to Sec. 108(1) of Transfer of Property Act, was for indefinite/uncertain duration and the tenant/petitioner cannot be evicted at the instance of plaintiff/landlord, more so when no default in payment of rent at any point of time, is being committed by the tenant/petitioner. It has also been submitted that at no point of time, any notice whatsoever terminating the tenancy, has ever been served upon the defendant/petitioner and as such by no stretch of imagination, the proceedings in question could have been maintained without terminating the tenancy and as such the orders impugned are per se bad, unsustainable and are liable to be set aside.