SMT. USHA RANI vs RAJESH GUPTA AND OTHERS

Manoj K. Tiwari, J

This is tenant’s petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, against the orders dated 07.02.2017 and 04.05.2018 passed by learned

trial court and revisional court, respectively.

Respondents instituted a civil suit for eviction and mesne profits against petitioner in the court of Civil Judge (J.D.), Kashipur, District Udham Singh

Nagar, which was registered as Original Suit No. 15 of 2016. In the said suit, it was contended that the suit property is a plot of land, which was

leased out to the predecessor of the petitioner in the year 1974 and the lessee had no right to make construction over the suit property. Â

Petitioner, who is successor of the original tenant, filed a written statement, contending that the tenant has constructed pucca walls and a roofed

structure, with the permission of the landlord, therefore, provisions of U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 are

attracted. Hence, civil suit for eviction is not maintainable. In other words, contention of the tenant (petitioner herein) was that civil court has no

jurisdiction to hear and decide the suit.Â

Based on the pleadings of the parties, issues were settled and issue No. 4 was regarding jurisdiction of the civil court. The said issue was decided

as a preliminary issue against the defendant (petitioner herein) by learned trial court vide order dated 07.02.2017. Feeling aggrieved by the said

order, tenant filed a revision under Section 115 of C.P.C. and the learned IInd Additional District Judge, Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar

dismissed the said revision vide judgment and order dated 04.05.2018. Thus, feeling aggrieved by the said orders, petitioner has filed this petition.Â

I have gone through the orders impugned in the writ petition and after hearing learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that learned trial

court has given cogent reasons for holding that civil court has jurisdiction to try the suit. Learned revisional court has also considered all relevant

aspects for coming to a conclusion that the matter can be heard and decided by a civil court. Â

In such view of the matter, I find no reason to interfere in the impugned orders. The writ petition, therefore, fails and is hereby dismissed. Â

No order as to costs.Â