Allahabad High Court
Jannatun Nisha @ Jannatul Nisha And 6 ... vs Ram Hetu And 3 Others on 2 July, 2025
Author: Pankaj Bhatia
Bench: Pankaj Bhatia
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH ?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:37132 Court No. - 7 Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 3890 of 2025 Petitioner :- Jannatun Nisha @ Jannatul Nisha And 6 Others Respondent :- Ram Hetu And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ajay Kumar Pandey,Prateek Tewari Counsel for Respondent :- Ram Prasad Verma Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and Shri Ram Prasad Verma, learned counsel for the respondents.
2. The present petition has been filed challenging the order dated 27.03.2023, whereby the suit filed by the respondents being Suit No.108 of 2008 was decreed for rent and ejectment as well as the order dated 26.04.2025, whereby the revision filed under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887 (herein after referred to as the 'Act') was rejected.
3. The facts as emerged from the petition are that the respondents, claiming themselves to be the owner of the property in question, instituted a suit No.108 of 2008, claiming that a notice of termination of tenancy was served and despite, the service of notice, the premises was not vacated. The respondents claimed the ownership of the property by virtue of a Will executed by the erstwhile owner Smti. Laxmi Devi, with whom the respondents are related. The petitioner as a tenantfiled a defence. In the said defence, a plea was taken that the erstwhile land lady had also executed an unregistered Will in favour of the petitioners and thus, they seized to be tenantof the premises. The claim of the respondents, who had disputed the suit is based upon a registered Will. Based upon the pleadings, the JSCC Court framed as many as four points of determination. The first point of the determination was as to whether the relationship of the land lord and tenant existed in between the parties or not. The JSCC Court, based upon the evidence and admission that the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners were the tenant of the premises, recorded a finding to the effect that the relationship of the land lord and tenant existed in between the parties. All the other three issues were also decided in favour of the land lord to the effect that no amounts were paid towards the rent and the service of notice was also found to be sufficient. As such, based upon the said, the suit came to be decreed on 27.03.2023. Aggrieved against the said, a revision was preferred under Section 25 of the Act. The revisional court after hearing the parties affirmed the judgement and decree passed by the JSCC Court and dismissed the revision.
4. Challenging the said two orders, learned counsel for the petitioners argues that during the pendency of the proceedings before the JSCC Court, an application under Section 23 of the Act was filed for relegating the matter to the Civil Court in view of there being a dispute with regard to title of the property. However, no orders were passed on the said application. It is argued that a specific plead to that effect was taken at the time of filing of the revision. However, no order has been passed considering the said fact either in the order passed by the JSCC Court or by the revisional court.
5. From the documents what transpires is that the respondents claimed to be the owner of the property by virtue of a registered Will executed in their favour, whereas the petitioners claimed the ownership by virtue of an unregistered Will executed by the erstwhile land lady in favour of the petitioners. It also transpires from the record that after the death of the original land lady, namely, Laxmi Devi, mutation proceedings took place and the name of one Jagat Narain was mutated. Surprisingly, no steps were taken by the petitioners for getting their name mutated nor were any steps taken against the order of mutation passed in favour of Jagat Narain also claimed in his favour.
6. From the record, it is clear that no suit whatsoever was filed by the petitioners seeking a declaration of rights in favour of the petitioners by virtue of an alleged Will executed in their favour. Thus, the application under Section 23 of the Act was simply deployed to delay the proceedings, which the petitioners also succeeded inasmuch as the JSCC suit was instituted in the year 2008. Surprisingly, after the decision, a suit was filed in the year 2025 seeking to challenge the Will executed in favour of the respondents as well as for declaration of the rights, whereas a specific defence to that effect was taken in the written statement itself in the suit of the year 2008.
7. Clearly, the petitioner has tried all the judicial tactics to somehow delay. With regard to Section 23 application, as no title dispute was raised at the point of filing of the application under Section 23 of the Act, the same was rightly not considered by the JSCC Court.
8. Considering the findings of fact recorded by both the courts, no interference is called for in exercise of power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
9. The petition lacks merits and is accordingly, dismissed.
Order Date :- 2.7.2025 Ashutosh