Allahabad High Court
Ratan Lal And 4 Others vs Mohammad Sarif And 2 Others on 3 January, 2022
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 4 Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 6503 of 2021 Petitioner :- Ratan Lal And 4 Others Respondent :- Mohammad Sarif And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Kamlesh Kumar Tiwari Counsel for Respondent :- Rishikesh Tripathi,Fakhruzzaman Hon'ble J.J. Munir,J.
Heard Mr. Kamlesh Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Rishikesh Tripathi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents through Video-Conferencing.
The petitioners, who are the landlords, have challenged the order dated 04.01.2021 passed by the Additional District Judge/Special Judge, Dacoity Affected Area Act, Jhansi passed in S.C.C. Revision No. 192 of 1994 remitting a point to the Trial Court for decision. A suit for eviction was filed by the landlord-respondents giving rise to S.C.C. Suit No. 42 of 1983 before the Judge, Small Causes Court, Jhansi. This Suit was tried and decreed by the Judge, Small Causes Court on 27.09.1994. S.C.C. Revision No. 192 of 2014 was carried from this decree. It appears that during course of hearing of this revision, the tenants sought amendment to the written statement seeking to incorporate a plea that notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act was never served. This amendment was granted by the Revisional Court vide order dated 13.08.1996. It is pointed out that this order granting amendment was challenged before this Court in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 34392 of 1996. The aforesaid petition was dismissed as abated on 01.04.2008. Thus, the order granting amendment has attained finality. Now, the Revisional Court by the impugned order has remitted a point of determination to the Trial Court for decision after taking necessary evidence in view of the amended pleadings in paragraph no. 8 of written statement, whether the notice to quit under Section 106 of Transfer of Property Act was ever served on the tenant.
The landlord has now petitioned this Court challenging the order passed by the Revisional Court requiring the Trial Court to decide the point about service of notice after taking necessary evidence. It is argued by the learned counsel for the petitioners that permitting this issue or the point to be raised afresh at this distance of time in a suit, which is one of the year 1983, is manifestly illegal besides being substantially unjust. It is nothing but a tactic to delay proceedings of the suit at the instance of the tenant. It is urged that there is nothing shown on record to condone the delay on the tenants' part in raising a point as fundamental as service of notice at this belated stage before the Court.
Mr. Rishikesh Tripathi, learned counsel for the tenant-respondents submits that the amendment has been allowed by the Revisional Court way back in the year 1996 and that has been approved by this Court in a writ petition. Therefore, an issue or the point remitted by the Revisional Court for decision by the trial Court after taking necessary evidence, is the inevitable course.
Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, this Court finds that it is true that the amendment in this case was granted way back in the year 1996. That order permitted a plea to be amended in paragraph no. 8 of the writ petition to the effect that notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act was never served upon tenant. The said order has attained finality between parties. The consequence of this amendment is that matter has to be determined on facts whether the notice to quit under Section 106 of Transfer of Property Act was served on the tenants. It is for this purpose the Revisional Court has remitted the point to the Trial Court for decision in accordance with law.
In the circumstances, this Court does not find any infirmity with the order impugned so as to warrant interference under Article 227 of the Constitution. However, considering the fact that the suit is very old and one of the year 1983, the Trial Court to which the point has been remitted by the Revisional Court shall expeditiously proceed to return its finding to Revisional Court, as far as may be within three months next. The Revisional Court shall proceed to decide the Revision within four months of the date of receipt of the Trial Court's findings.
This petition is disposed of in terms of the aforesaid orders.
No costs.
Order Date :- 3.1.2022 Deepak