SUGHRA BEGUM Vs. ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE XIITH LUCKNOW

JUDGEMENT

(1.) After considering the arguments made by the learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the record of the case thoroughly, the writ petition was partly allowed and operative portion of the judgment was dictated in the open Court in presence of the learned counsel for the parties and was also signed on 17.3.1998, but to save the time of the Court, the reasons for the said judgment/order were not dictated in the Court, they were directed to follow. I hereunder state the reasons for the judgment and order.

(2.) By means of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner prays for issuance of a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 18.11.1997 rejecting the application of the petitioner for return of the plaint for presentation before a Court of competent jurisdiction and the order dated 13.1.1998, whereby revision filed against the order of the trial court was dismissed by the revisional court.

(3.) The facts of the case, as set out in the writ petition, are that the building in question was originally owned by Smt. Nasaseem Jaan who sold the same in favour of Sri Mohd. Yaqub Khan, who let out the same to Late Ghulam Husain, the husband of the petitioner. It was on 30.10.1940 that the building in dispute was purchased by one Smt. Kishwari Begam since deceased from Sri Mohd. Yaqub Khan, Smt. Kishwari Begam had died issueless in the year 1941 and the building in question devolved upon her brother Syed Ashfaq Ali. The petitioner used to pay rent to Sri Ashfaq Ali and his son on his death to Ali Miyan and Syed Akhtar Naqvi (son-in-law). O.S. No. 93 of 1990 was already pending in respect of the property in dispute in the Court of Civil Judge (Sr. Division], Mohanlalganj, Lucknow. Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 served a notice of demand and termination of tenancy dated 24.10.1996 upon the petitioner with the allegation that the building in question was purchased by them from the heirs of Late Mohd. Yaqub Khan through sale deeds dated 31.10.1992 and 10.10.1993. The said notice was replied by the petitioner denying the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. The respondent Nos. 3 and 4 thereafter filed the S.C.C. Suit No. 126 of 1997 for ejectment of the petitioner from the building in question and for recovery of arrears of rent. On receipt of the summons, petitioner filed written statement denying the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and the right of the said respondents to eject her from the building in question. Petitioner also made an application under Section 23 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887 (for short the Act). Ali Miyan son of Syed Ashfaq Ali also filed an application under Order 1, Rule 10, C.P.C. for impleadment as a party in the suit, claiming that in respect of the property in dispute, title suit was pending in the Court of Civil Judge, Mohanlalganj since 1990. In support of their cases, the parties have produced evidence. The trial court held that the properties involved in Original Suit No. 93 of 1990 and in the present suit were different on the basis of description of boundaries in the sale deeds, which formed part of the record and dismissed the application filed by the petitioner under Section 23 of the Act by judgment and order dated 18.11.1997. The revision filed against the said judgment and order also failed and was dismissed by the Court below vide its judgment and order dated 13.1.1998.