ALI MIR BEG Vs. AHAD BEG

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a plaintiffs revision petition against the order of the Judge Small Causes Court Srinagar dismissing the plaintiffs suit for Rs. 54 as arrears of rent alleged to be due from the respondent from 3 -12 -59 till 13 -6 -63 for some premises situate at Mohalla Nawab Bazar Srinagar on the basis of a rent deed dated 14 -10 -2002. The learned Judge has dismissed the suit because in a suit for partition brought by the present plaintiff against the respondent it was held that the plaintiff -petitioner had no title to the property for which the rent deed has been executed under coercion by the non -applicant. This finding was recorded by the City Munsiff in a regular suit which was decided on 6 -2 -58, an appeal against which was dismissed by the District Judge Srinagar by his order dated 26 -4 -62.

(2.) THE facts that have given rise to this revision petition are that the defendant -respondent executed a rent deed in favour of the plaintiff for a portion of a three storeyed, three windowed building situate at Nawab Bazar, Shah Mohalla Srinagar contracting to pay a rent of Rs. 18 per year for the premises. The defendant usually fell in arrears of rent, and suits for different periods for the rent of the premises were brought by the plaintiff against the defendant which were decreed. The present suit was, as already stated, for arrears of rent from 3 -12 -59 to 13 -6 -63, after giving up the claim for six months rent.

(3.) THE defence was that the property for which the rent deed had been taken from the defendant did not belong to the plaintiff. The property was the subject matter of a regular suit for partition brought by the plaintiff against the defendant in the court of the City Munsiff Srinagar who dismissed the suit of the plaintiff on 6 -2 -58, holding that the property for which the rent deed had been executed did not belong to the plaintiff and further that the rent deed in question was executed by the defendant under coercion. This finding was upheld by the District Judge by order dated 26 -4 -62 as already indicated.