MOHAMMAD SHAFI ANSARI Vs. KHALIL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS application hat been filed by the plaintiff of a pending suit. It arises out of an order passed by the trial court on the 19th April, 1971, rejecting the plaintiff's application under Section 11-A of Bihar Act III of 1947. The plaintiff had prayed that the defendant should be ordered to deposit rent at the rate of Rs. 20 per month from August 1967, to the date of the application together with future rent. The defendant-opposite party denied the relationship of landlord and tenant, contending that the plaintiff was not entitled to the reliefs claimed under Section 11-A. The plaintiff's application was considered by the trial court and counsel for the parties were heard and the application has failed.

(2.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner has argued, that, a letter dated the 4th October, 1969, sent by the defendant to the plaintiff was filed in the proceeding under consideration and the learned trial Judge has misconstrued the letter, saying that the genuineness of the letter had been challenged on behalf of the defendant. The learned counsel has read out the letter as well as the plaintiff's application under Section 11-A and he has also read out the defendant's rejoinder to that application. Reliance has been placed on paragraph 5 of the defendant's rejoinder, where the defendant stated, that, the letter dated the 4th October, 1969, did not disclose the relationship of landlord and tenant between the plaintiff and the defendant. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the defendant had, therefore, admitted the genuineness of this letter and, therefore, the court below was in error in stating that the genuineness of the lettet was challenged. In my opinion, the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner are not valid in a civil revisional application. The learned Judge has referred to this letter dated the 4th October, 1969, and has dealt with it in detail and it may very well have been that the genuineness of the letter had been challenged in court. From the plaintiff's petition under Section 11-A, it appears that the plaintiff had made out a case in paragraph 4 thereof that the defendant had admitted his relationship of landlord and tenant by this letter dated the 4th October, 1969. Obviously, the defendant had replied to this paragraph by denying what was stated by the plaintiff in his own petition. The genuineness of this letter is likely to be contested in the suit, if the plaintiff relies on it, and, therefore, there was no error in the order of the learned trial Judge in dealing with this letter in the manner in which the case was presented to the Court in this summary proceeding. I do not think any case has been made put for interference in this Court's revisional jurisdiction. It may, however, be clarified that all the findings arrived at by the learned trial Judge were for the purpose of deciding the matter under Section 11-A and the conclusions will not be final between the parties in the litigation itself. The civil revisional application is dismissed.