Sheikh Chhotey Mansoori vs Ravikul Bansal and Others

Rajes Kumar, J.—By means of the present writ petition, the Petitioner is challenging the order dated 15.12.2010 in S.C.C. Revision No. 50 of 2009 by which the revision filed by the Petitioner against the order of the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Banda in S.C.C. Suit No. 3 of 2001 has been rejected.

The Petitioner is Defendant in the suit. The Respondent has filed a suit for eviction and arrears of rent. The Petitioner has also filed the written statement. The Respondent moved an application for striking off the defence under Order XV Rule 5 of CPC on the ground that the Petitioner has not deposited the rent. No objection has been filed by the Petitioner. The Civil Judge (Senior Division), Banda vide its order dated 6.10.2009 has struck off the defence of the Petitioner on the ground that the rent has not been deposited.

It appears that the Petitioner filed objection after the dictation of the judgment and the reference in this regard has also been made in the order of the Civil Judge itself. Against the said order, the Petitioner filed revision, which has been dismissed. The revisional authority has recorded the finding that from the perusal of the record of the lower court it appears that in his written statement revisionist/Defendant had admitted the tenancy of the vacant land. From the perusal of paper Nos. 20C, 21C, 22C and 23C it appears that the revisionist/Defendant had sent rent through money orders which was refused by Plaintiff/Respondent. These papers were filed by Defendant/revisionist himself. In the circumstances, now he cannot deny the relationship in between the parties as owner and tenant. Moreover, from the perusal of file of lower court record also appears that previously on 6.10.2001 the amendment application 30A moved by revisionist/Defendant to treat him as licensee and not tenant was rejected by the lower court and revision filed against that order was also rejected on 4.4.2003. Similar type of application 56C-2 was again moved which was rejected on 21.4.2004 by the lower court and revision filed against the order was also rejected on 6.11.2004. Another application 96A-2 moved by Defendant/revisionist was rejected by the lower court on 30.4.2008. From the perusal of the orders passed by the lower court and the revisional court in this regard makes it clear that there was relationship of landlord and tenant in between the parties regarding the land in dispute. In the above circumstances, it cannot be said that the Defendant/revisionist was not the tenant of Plaintiff/Respondent but neither he deposited the arrears of rent nor deposited monthly amount due required to be deposited under Order XV Rule 5(1) at the admitted rate of rent.

Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that in the written statement the Petitioner denied that he was tenant. It was stated that the land was of the Nagar Palika and a portion has been given to the Petitioner. Therefore, he submitted that in the written statement itself the Petitioner denied the relationship of the landlord and the tenant.

I do not find any substance in the submission of learned Counsel for the Petitioner. A perusal of the written statement reveals that the Petitioner has admitted that he was paying the rent @ Rs. 60/- per month initially and thereafter @ Rs. 200/- per month to the Plaintiff towards rent and, therefore, mere denial that he was not the landlord, would not be sufficient. Moreover, the revisional authority has considered various orders passed by the trial court and the revisional court rejecting the plea of the Petitioner that he was not the tenant. Both the orders have become final. Therefore, the finding recorded by the revisional court cannot be said to be based on no material and is perverse. The finding of the revisional authority is finding of fact, which does not require any interference.

In the result, the writ petition fails and is dismissed.