Allahabad High Court
Riyaz Ahmad vs Buland Aktar on 10 May, 2010
Author: Rakesh Sharma
Bench: Rakesh Sharma
Court No. - 30 Case :- CIVIL REVISION No. - 192 of 2010 Petitioner :- Riyaz Ahmad Respondent :- Buland Aktar Petitioner Counsel :- Chetan Chatterjee Respondent Counsel :- A.K. Singh,Ashish Kumar Singh Hon'ble Rakesh Sharma,J.
Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record.
Heard Sri Chetan Chatterjee, counsel for the revisionist and Sri Ashish Kumar Singh, counsel for the respondents.
This revision has been preferred against an interim order passed by the Judge, Small Causes Court, Saharanpur on 24.2.2010 declining to entertain a formal application submitted by the revisionist to frame issue that the suit No.2 of 2006 is barred by provisions contained in section 10 C.P.C.. According to Sri Chatterjee, the revisionist had filed a suit No.232 of 2004 against the defendants and others seeking relief that he may not be dispossessed from the shop in dispute except in accordance with law and the wall situate on rear of the shop may not be demolished. The subsequent suit i.e. 2 of 2006 was filed by Buland Akhtar claiming himself to be the land lord against Riyaj Ahmad tenant seeking his eviction on the ground of default in making payment of rent to the landlord. The tenant fell in arrears of rent for several years.
Learned counsel for the revisionist has placed reliance on relevant provisions of section 10 C.P.C. and a judgment reported in 2005(2) Supreme Court Cases 256- National Institute of Mental Health and Neuro Sciences Vs. C. Parameshwara to strenghten his submission. According to him the subject matter in dispute is same and the subsequent suit was not maintainable barred by the provisions contained in section 10 C.P.C..
Sri Ashish Kumar Singh has resisted the motion. He has submitted that the two suits were entirely different. The subject matter in the two suits is entirely different. The suit of 2004 which was preferred by the tenant was against the alleged dispossession from the rented premises while the subsequent one was for payment of rent and eviction of the tenant from the rented premises. He has placed reliance on a decision of this Court reported in 2005(59) ALR 56- Suresh Kumar Bansal Vs. Vijay Kumar Jain.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
The order passed by the Judge, Small Causes Court, Saharanpur on 24.2.2010 is a detailed, reasoned and speaking order. The court has carefully dealt with the submissions put forth by the contesting parties. He has found that the first suit was for the relief that the tenant cannot be dispossessed from the premises except in accordance with law. According to the tenant there was no instant danger of breaking over the wall. However, this incident did not take place in 2006 and the land lord had filed the subsequent suit seeking eviction and recovery of arrears of rent. The reasonings given by the Judge, Small Causes Court, Saharanpur appear to be just and proper. The reliefs sought in these cases are entirely different and because the foundation of the cases itself was different, the court had declined to entertain the application . The court is going to proceed further.
The matter is pending before the Judge, Small Causes Court, Saharanpur. Such a matter has to be disposed of expeditiously.
In view of the above, no interference is required . The revision is dismissed. The court must proceed with the case and reach at a just and proper conclusion in accordance with law. The parties will cooperate in the proceedings.
Order Date :- 10.5.2010 VPC