Allahabad High Court
Sharda Singh vs Mahendra Pal Singh on 10 May, 2010
Author: Rakesh Sharma
Bench: Rakesh Sharma
Court No. - 30 Case :- CIVIL REVISION No. - 243 of 2010 Petitioner :- Sharda Singh Respondent :- Mahendra Pal Singh Petitioner Counsel :- S.K. Mishra,G.P. Singh Hon'ble Rakesh Sharma,J.
Heard Shri S.K. Mishra, learned counsel for the revisionist and perused the materials on record.
Under challenge is an order passed by Additional District Judge, Court No.2, Aligarh, decreeing the suit no. 11 of 2001 of Mahendra Pal Singh and Ajab Singh against the tenant Smt. Sharda Singh (revisionist herein).
It emerges from record that the property in dispute is an Ice factory constructed in the year 1995. On the basis of a rent agreement said to have been executed on 3.3.1995 (Kiraynama), the revisionist Sharda Singh was inducted as tenant by Chhidu Singh (father of Mahendra Pal Singh & Ajab Singh). This establishment was known as Rosy Ice Factory situate in city of Aligarh. A big Hall, two rooms having water-tank surrounded by a boundary wall was rented for a sum of Rs.300 per month. A document 38-C is on record to show the alleged agreement. The other documents like sanction of electricity load, Health Officers Permission, no objection from Pollution Control Board etc. are available on record. Thus, landlord-tenant relationship was established and the revisionist was carrying on ice manufacturing business in the rented premises. After the death of Chhidu Singh, revisionist- tenant defaulted in payment of rent and no rent was paid from 16.5.1998. A joint notice was given by the two sons of Chhidu Singh. At this stage, learned counsel for the revisionist submitted that there were three sons of Chhidu Singh not two and the third one did not enter into litigation against the revisionist. A suit in the Small Causes Court by Mahendra Pal Singh and Ajab Singh Sons of Chiddu Singh was preferred after serving notice. It was pleaded before the Court that Smt. Sharda Singh had handed over the possession of the property in fact this was found to be untrue. Advocate-Commissioner was appointed and he in its report dated 18.4.2003 had reported that on the premises a lock was put by Smt. Sharda Singh. She was still in possession of the rented premises. As far as default in payment of rent to the landlord is concerned, the court had relied on the statement of Sharda Singh that the ice manufacturing factory was wound up in July 1998 and the rent up to the said date was paid to Mahendra Pal Singh. The court had found that the revisionist Smt. Sharada Singh has not handed over the possession. A partnership deed etc. were produced before the court. The ice factory rented premises was infact came in ownership of Mahendra Pal Singh and Ajab Singh. The Small Causes Court had recorded clear findings bases on oral and documentary evidence that the tenant had not paid the rent since July 998 and she had not handed over the peaceful possession of the rented premises i.e. Ice Factory, descriptions of which has been given in the foregoing paragraphs. The tenant is bound by the terms and conditions spelt out in the Rent agreement. She was given a formal notice to vacate the premises.
This court has taken note that in this country sanctity of agreement is not respected. Despite being party to the rent agreement and contract, erring party takes a turn round, drag the other sides in unnecessary litigation for several years. It is common that such cases linger on for 5 to 10 years in J.S.C.C. and the the Small Causes Court are unable to cope up with the burden of the litigation. because of heavy work load. The High Court while exercising its revisional jurisdiction under Section 25 of J.S.C.C. has to be careful and cannot be persuaded by the litigants to act as a first or second appellate court, reappraising evidence acting as a super-trial court or super first appellate court. The same view has been taken by this court in Laxmi Kishore and another Vs. Har Prasad Shukla, Allahabad Rent Cases 1981 and Ram Dhani Vs. Raja Ram, 2007 (25) LCD 443 .
In view of above there is no illegality and infirmity in the judgment and decree rendered by the Small Causes Court. The Revision is accordingly dismissed.
Order Date :- 10.5.2010 pks