Fazel-Ul-Rehman vs VIIIth A.D.J. and Others

Sudhir Agarwal, J.—Heard Sri R.K. Pandey, Advocate for the petitioner and perused the record. This writ petition is directed against the judgment dated 26.2.1997 passed by VIIIth Additional District Judge, Bulandshahar allowing revision of the respondent-landlord and setting aside Trial Court''s judgment dated 13th March, 1995. The Revisional Court has decreed the suit of landlord respondent No. 2 for eviction of petitioner-tenant and also for recovery of arrears of rent and damages for use and occupation of the premises in question.

It appears that the respondent-landlord Aziz Khanam and four others filed SCC Suit No. 27 of 1993 against the petitioner-tenant seeking his ejectment from disputed building on the ground that he did not make payment of rent and also denied title of the landlords, therefore, is liable for ejectment u/s 21(1)(f) of U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (for short "the Act 1972"). The Trial Court though recorded a finding that the respondents-landlord had shown beyond doubt that they are owners of the property in dispute, yet proceeded to hold that defendant-tenant has claimed himself owner of the property and, therefore, it results in a title dispute which could have been considered by Civil Court in regular jurisdiction and not in SCC proceedings. The Revisional Court however has held that once findings with respect to ownership has been recorded by the Trial Court in favour of landlord, and, it has accepted relation of landlord and tenant between the parties, it was unfair on its part to return the plaint on the ground that there was dispute of title. In any case, if S.C.C. Court was of the opinion that there had been a dispute of title which should be decided by a regular Civil Court, it should not have decided the case but ought to have returned the plaint at the outset. It has further been held that once ownership of the plaintiff-landlord is accepted, the tenant is liable to be evicted from property in dispute u/s 20(2)(f) of the Act, 1972 having denied title of the plaintiff-landlord.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that once Trial Court has held that there was a dispute with regard to title of premises in question, it was not proper on the part of the Revisional Court to interfere with the Trial Court''s judgment. The submission is thoroughly misconceived. A mere dispute raised by the tenant would not preclude Small Causes Court from deciding the suit between landlord and tenant, seeking ejectment of tenant when admittedly it found that the plaintiff-landlord has proved his ownership over the property in dispute and that too after considering admission on the part of the tenant also.

So far as the question of payment of arrears of rent is concerned, admittedly, he (tenant) did not recognize plaintiff-landlord as owner of the house and has not paid any rent to the respondent-landlord. This fact is also evident from the written statement filed by the petitioner-tenant.

In the circumstances, while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, I do not find any manifest error on the face of the record in the Revisional Court''s judgment. Even otherwise having gone through the impugned order as also pleadings and grounds taken in writ petition, I do not find any patent illegality or irregularity in the order impugned in this writ petition warranting interference. Findings of facts have been recorded which have not been shown perverse or contrary to material on record. I, therefore, do not find any reason to interfere. The Scope of judicial review under Article 227 is very limited and narrow as discussed in detail by this Court in Writ Petition No. 11365 of 1998 (Jalil Ahmad v. 16th Addl. Distt. Judge, Kanpur Nagar and others) decided on 30.7.2012. There is nothing which may justify judicial review of order impugned in this writ petition in the light of exposition of law, as discussed in the above judgment.

In view of the above, I do not find any reason to interfere.

Dismissed. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.