ANIL KUMAR Vs. JAIPAL GUPTA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PRESENT Civil Revision has been filed under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Causes Act against the judgment and decree dated 10.02.2009 passed by Additional District Judge, Court No.2, Moradabad decreeing the suit of plaintiff-respondent No.1 with cost in JSCC Suit No.16 of 1980, Jaipal Gupta vs. Kali Charan and others.

(2.) BRIEF background of the case is that plaintiff-respondent No. 1 filed JSCC Suit No. 16 of 1980, contending therein that the plaintiff is owner of the shop in dispute situated in Brahm Bazar, Town Chandausi, District Moradabad. Said shop was old one and was let out to one Badri Prasad, father of defendant Nos.1 to 3 and husband of defendant No.4 at the rate of Rs.150/- per month. Said shop was reconstructed during the year 1966-70, and the provisions of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 were not applicable. Since rent of the shop in question was not paid since July, 1978, as such notice was given for ejectment, and thereafter suit for ejectment was filed. At the point of time when suit was filed on 17.04.1980, prayer had not been made for decree of arrears of rent and damages for use and occupation of the shop from 18.07.1978 to 17.04.1980, i.e. since the date on termination of tenancy and the date on which suit was filed, as such these prayers had been added by way of amendment. Suit was contested by filing written statement and additional written statement. Defendant No. 4 filed separate written statement. On the basis of evidence available on record, issues were framed. Evidence in the shape oral as well as documentary was brought on record. Suit was finally decided by the Judge Small Cause on 28.07.1987 and the same was dismissed with cost. Thereafter, the plaintiff filed Review Application on 05.08.1987 against the judgment dated 28.07.1987 in the same court. Review application was also dismissed on 12.02.2002. Aggrieved by the said order, the plaintiff filed civil revision No.245 of 2002 before this Court. Said revision was rejected vide order dated 28.02.2003, making it clear that nothing in the said order would prevent the plaintiff from taking appropriate steps against the judgment and decree of the trial court before any appropriate forum, and it was still open to the plaintiff to challenge the finding of the decree passed in JSCC suit No.16 of 1980 by taking appropriate steps. After the said order had been passed again review application was filed and the same was also rejected. This Court while deciding review application again clarified that any observation made in the order would not prevent the plaintiff from taking appropriate steps in accordance with law before appropriate forum. Thereafter, the plaintiff-landlord filed Civil Revision No.669 of 2003 before this Court. This Court allowed the said revision on 20.10.2005 and remanded the matter back by setting aside the order dated 28.07.1987 and further as the provisions of Order 15 rule 5 C.P.C. had not been complied with to meet the needs of the situation, pragmatic view was taken in exercise of inherent powers by proceeding to pass order striking off the defence of the defendants in terms of statutory provisions of Order 15 rule 5 C.P.C. After the said judgment had been delivered, the tenant in question i.e. the applicant-defendant preferred special leave to appeal (civil) No.26618 of 2005. The Hon'ble Apex Court on 20.03.2006 passed following order, upholding the validity of order passed by this Court:

(3.) AS suit in question had been filed in the year 1980 and since then more than 29 years have elapsed and there was already an order of the Hon'ble Apex Court to decide the matter within six months, seeing the exigency of the matter, as such present revision has been taken up for final hearing and decision with consent of the parties.