CourtKutchehry.com
High Courts

Saghir Abbas vs VII Addl. District Judge,Kanpur Nagar and Another

Allahabad High Court · Decided on 19 February 1999 · Citation: (1999) 02 AHC CK 0084

HON’BLE JUDGES
S.N.Agarwal, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887 — Section 25 · Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 — Section 20(4)
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
Civil Miscellaneous Writ Petition No. 9330 of 1998
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

7 paragraphs · 504 words

Sudhir Narain, J.—This writ petition is directed against the order dated 17121997 passed by respondent No. 1 remanding the suit to the Judge Small Causes Court to decide it afresh.

2.

The plaintiffrespondent filed J.S.C.C. Suit No. 193 of 1985 for recovery of arrears of rent, damages and ejectment .against the petitioner alleging that the rent was due against him since 1091993. He gave a notice of demand to the petitioner on 22ll1984|demanding the arrears of rent terminating his tenancy. The notice was served

3.

1 have heard Sri A.C. Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri O.P. Singh, learned counsel for the respondent.

4.

There [were two questions involved in the suit. Firstly, as to whether the petitioner was defaulter in payment of arrears of rent and secondly, whether he was entitled to this benefits of Section 20(4) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 (in short the Act). Respondent No. 1, in para 8 of his judgment, has recorded a finding that the petitioner, before filing tie writtenstatement, has deposited Rs. 700. The rent due against him was Rs. 403.25 and taxes Rs. 175.90 total Rs. 579.10. If the cost of the suit and the| counsel fee is included this amount shill exceed. The Revisional Court remanded the matter to consider this aspect. !For this purpose, it was not necessary td remand the matter. If it was purely a mathematical question as to how much amount was to be deposited on the date of first hearing and as to what amount was deposited by the tenantpetitioner, could be calculated and decided by the Revisional Court itself. The petitioner was claiming the benefit of the provisions of Section 20(4) of the Act and it could have been decided by the Court.

5.

The Court can remand a case when material evidence has not been considered by Judge Small Causes Court or certain point has not been decided. In absence of any such direction as to on what point the trial Court has to decide the matter, the remand order was unjustified. In Laxmi Kishore arid others v. Har Prasad Shukla, 1979 ACJ 473, it was held that the Court exercising revisional power under Section 25 of the Act, if it cannot dispose of the case adequatel without a finding on a particular facts, it can send the case back after laying down the proper guideline.

6.

In view of the above, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 17121997 is hereby quashed. Respondent No. 1 shall hear the revision afresh in accordance with law. In case he finds that the material evidence has been ignored while deciding an issue or certain points have not been decided, it can record a finding indicating therein a reasonable ground for remand. Respondent No. 1 shall decide the revision within a period of three months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order.

7.

Considering the facts and. circumstances the parties shall however, bear their own costs. Petition allowed.