SHAKUNTALA DEVI (SMT.) Vs. RAM SEWAK AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SMT . Shakuntala Devi (petitioner) filed a J.S.C.C. Suit No. 10 of 1991 against Sri Mathura Prasad (respondent No. 2) and Sri Ram Sewak (respondent No. 1) for their eviction on the ground that she is a landlady of the house in dispute at 100 per month of which respondent No. 2 is tenant. He has illegally sub -let the same to the respondent No. 1. There was further allegation that the plaintiff's suit is liable to be decreed on the grounds of the arrears of the rent. This suit was decreed by J.S.C. Court on 12th October, 1994 on the finding that petitioner is the landlady of the house in question and respondent No. 2 has illegally sub -let the same to the respondent No. 1. The trial Court also held the suit was liable to be decreed on the ground of arrears of rent. Aggrieved by the order both the respondents No. 1 and 2 filed a S.C.C. revision No. 194 of 1994 which was allowed on 15th March, 1995 on the ground that the petitioner was not the landlady of the house in question, as such the notice sent by her is not valid. The revisional Court has also held that the house in question was not sub -let to the respondent No. 1, hence the present writ petition. The plaintiff has alleged in para 1 of the plaint that she is landlady of the premises in dispute of which respondent No. 2 is a tenant. In para 1 of the written statement it was admitted that the petitioner is owner and the landlady of the house. In view of this admission it was not necessary to prove that the petitioner was the landlady. In any case, the trial Court after considering the evidence on record has given a finding of fact that the petitioner is landlady of the house in dispute. This finding of fact could not be interfered in the revision under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Causes Courts Act.

(2.) THE revisional Court has held that the notice sent by the petitioner is illegal on the ground that as petitioner is not the landlady, the notice sent by her is illegal.

(3.) THE Judge, Small Causes Court after considering the evidence on record has held that the respondent No. 2 had sub -let the house to respondent No. 1. This will also a finding of fact. It could not be interfered in the revision. Apart from it the Revisional Court was misled by its illegal finding that the petitioner is not the landlady of the house in question. This finding of the Revisional Court is also illegal and is liable to be set aside. The writ petition has merits, it is hereby allowed and the order of the revisional Court dated 15.3.1995 is hereby quashed. The judgment of the trial Court dated 12th October, 1994 is restored.