MOHD. HANEEF Vs. JAMEER AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant petition is directed against the order dated 2.5.2018 passed by District Judge, Bulandshahr allowing Revision No.1 of 2016 and dismissing Revision No.28 of 2015.

(2.) The brief facts necessary for disposal of the instant writ petition are as follows:-

(3.) Sri Yogendra Singh Bohra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the plaintiff-respondents submitted that the respondent-landlords instituted separate suit against tenants of all nine shops for eviction on the ground that the market in which these shops are situated was constructed in the year 1990-91 after getting the map sanctioned in the year 1989. It was first assessed to house tax in the year 1990-91. The suit filed against the tenant Bhola Shankar Sharma was decreed by the trial court holding that the shop under his tenancy was constructed in the year 1990-91 and was assessed for the first time in the same year. The claim of the tenant in that case that the shop in his tenancy was constructed in the year 1983, was repelled. He points out that against the judgement of the trial court, a revision was filed by the tenant, which was dismissed. The tenant of that case approached this Court by way of a petition under Article 227 bearing No.6109 of 2018, which was also dismissed by this Court by a detailed order dated 27.8.2018 upholding the findings recorded by the courts below that the shop in his tenancy was subjected to assessment for the first time in the year 1990-91. It is urged that the shop in dispute in the instant writ petition is one amongst the nine shops in the same market and was constructed at the same time. He further submitted that the findings relating to date of construction of the building is based on documentary evidence including the certificate issued by Adhyaksha, Nagar Panchayat, Chhatari certifying that the shops were subjected to house tax assessment for the first time in the year 1990-91. It is urged that the documents of the year 1983 upon which reliance was placed by the petitioner in the instant case, were also duly considered by this Court while deciding the petition filed by Bhola Shankar Sharma. However, he is not in a position to defend the other part of the order by which the revisional court has remanded the matter to the trial court for re-consideration of the claim of the respondent-landlord in relation to recovery of arrears of rent. Therefore, he also does not object in case the said part of the decree is set aside.