Ramji Gupta and Another vs Gopi Krishan Agrawal and Others

Anjani Kumar, J.—This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the Petitioners, who are the tenants of the accommodation in dispute. The Petitioners have challenged the order passed by the revisional court dated 20th April, 2001, whereby the revisional court has set aside the judgment and decree passed by the trial court decreeing the suit filed by the Respondent-landlord for eviction of the Petitioners and for damages.

The brief facts, giving rise to the filing of the present writ petition are that the landlord filed a suit before the trial court on the ground that Petitioner-tenants are liable to be evicted as they are in arrears of rent and have not paid the same and damages made by alteration. Defendant filed a written statement. After considering the pleading of the parties, issues were framed by the trial court. One of the issues was whether relationship of landlord and tenant exists between the parties. Apart from the issues, trial court considered that (i) whether Petitioners have paid the rent or not ; (ii) whether notice is valid or not ; (iii) whether suit is barred by time under the provisions of Section 23(2) of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887, hereinafter called the ''Act'' ; and (iv) question of title if so, its effect. The trial court by its judgment dated 15th May, 1999, dismissed the suit.

Aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 15th May 1999, landlord preferred a revision before the revisional court. Revisional court allowed the revision and remanded the matter back with the direction to the trial court to decide the case as per direction given in the judgment in accordance with law. On remand, the trial court found that suit is barred by time and involved question of title and other issues. Considering the evidence on record, the trial court recorded the findings and decreed the suit by his judgment and order dated 20th April, 2001. Aggrieved thereby, Petitioners-tenants preferred a revision before the revisional court. This revision has been dismissed and the revisional court upheld the findings recorded by the trial court.

Learned Counsel for the Petitioners-tenants raised the same arguments as were raised before the trial court as well as before the revisional court to the effect that suit is barred by time u/s 23(2) of the Act. Learned Counsel for the Petitioners further argued that Smt. Janki Bibi has executed a registered sale deed and thus Petitioner became ceased to be the owner. It is not disputed that findings recorded by the trial court which has been affirmed by the revisional court that as Janki Bibi has a life interest, therefore, the trial court as well as the revisional court came to the conclusion that Janki Bibi otherwise could not have executed a sale deed and thus there exists relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. The trial court also decided the issue whether the suit is barred by time u/s 23(2) of the Act or not. The trial court recorded the findings that tenants are in arrears of rent and have also made material alteration in the accommodation in dispute thereby diminishing the value of the building.

Learned Counsel for both the sides relied upon the decision in their favour. One of the decisions relied upon by the learned Counsel of the Petitioners is Smt. Palchuri Hanumayamma v. Tadikamalla Kotlingam (D) by L.Rs. and Ors. 2001 SAR (Civil) 856, in which it has been held that the husband executing a Will giving life interest to his wife and then to all his three daughters will not affect in view of the Section 14 of Hindu Succession Act, 1956.

The facts of the aforesaid case are different to the fact of the present case. In my opinion, the findings recorded by the trial court and affirmed by the revisional court do not warrant any interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India as also held by the Apex Court in Panna Devi v. Ram Prasad Pandey (D.) by L.Rs. and Ors. 2001 (2) ARC which are reproduced below:

On an appeal being filed the lower appellate court came to the conclusion that the objections filed by the Respondent herein were barred by time. He came to the conclusion that the bid of the Appellant was accepted by the Amin on 18.4.1972 and objections were filed nearly two years thereafter, and therefore, they were barred by time.

In view of the above decision and also as the learned Counsel for the Petitioners failed to demonstrate that the findings recorded by the trial court as well as revisional court suffer from manifest error of law or are perverse, this Court declines to exercise its power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

The petition is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed. The interim order/orders if any shall stand vacated. However, the parties shall bear their own costs.