Allahabad High Court
Munna Lal vs Sardar Jagjit Singh on 17 September, 2019
Author: Surya Prakash Kesarwani
Bench: Surya Prakash Kesarwani
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD Court No. - 05 Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 6624 of 2019 Petitioner :- Munna Lal Respondent :- Sardar Jagjit Singh Counsel for Petitioner :- Anwar Hussain Hon'ble Surya Prakash Kesarwani,J.
1. Heard Sri Anwar Hussain, learned counsel for the defendant-tenant/ petitioner.
2. Briefly stated facts of the present case are that admittedly the plaintiff-respondent is the owner and landlord of the disputed house situate in Mohalla Barwalan, Katghar Moradabad, in which the defendant-tenant/ petitioner was a tenant at a monthly rent of Rs.500/- since 05.11.1997. According to the plaintiff-landlord/ respondent, rent was not paid by the defendant-tenant/ petitioner after 04.04.1998 despite demand. Therefore, the plaintiff-landlord/ respondent issued a notice dated 24.02.2000 by registered post determining the tenancy and also demanded arrears of rent. The said notice was followed by another notice sent by registered post dated 06.03.2000. Since the defendant-tenant/ petitioner has neither paid arrears of rent nor vacated the disputed house, therefore, the plaintiff-landlord/ respondent filed on 21.04.2000 S.C.C. Suit No.26 of 2000 (Sardar Jagjeet Singh vs. Sri Munnalal) for eviction of the tenant on account of default in payment of rent and recovery of arrears of rent and damages. The said S.C.C. Suit No.26 of 2000, was decreed by the Judge Small Cause Court, Moradabad by judgment and decree dated 23.08.2018. Aggrieved with this judgment, the defendant-tenant/ petitioner filed S.C.C. Revision No.19 of 2018 (Munnalal vs. Sardar Jagjeet Singh), which has been dismissed by judgment dated 01.04.2019 passed by the IInd Additional District Judge, Moradabad. Aggrieved with these two judgments, the defendant-tenant/ petitioner has filed the present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
3. Learned counsel for the defendant-tenant/ petitioner submits that the defendant-tenant/ petitioner has regularly paid rent to the plaintiff-landlord/ respondent and has not defaulted in payment of rent and the entire finding recorded contrary to it, is incorrect. Therefore, the impugned judgments passed for eviction of the defendant-tenant/ petitioner, deserve to be set aside. He submits that the courts below have misread the cross-examination of the defendant-tenant/ petitioner as well as the rent agreement dated 05.11.1997 (paper No.32ga), rent receipt dated 06.11.1998 for the period from 07.11.1997 to 06.11.1998 for Rs.6,000/- (paper No.33ga), rent receipt dated 06.11.1999 for the period from 07.11.1998 to 06.11.1999 @ Rs.575/- per month, total Rs.6,900/- (paper No.34ga) and rent receipt dated 06.03.2000 for the period from 06.12.1999 to 06.03.2000 @ Rs.575/- per month, total Rs.2,290/- (paper No.35ga).
4. I have carefully considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the defendant-tenant/ petitioner.
5. Perusal of the impugned judgment dated 23.08.2018 in S.C.C. Suit No.26 of 2000 (Sardar Jagjeet Singh vs. Munnalal) passed by the Judge Small Cause Court, Moradabad shows that the defendant-tenant/ petitioner could not prove paper Nos.32ga, 33ga, 34ga and 35ga. His cross-examination dated 18.04.2017 as filed at pages 71 to 74 of the present petition, is reproduced below:
^^eSus fiNyh rkjh[k ij ;g ckr dgh Fkh fd eSus ges'kk fdjk;k 500 :0 izfrekg ds fglkc esa fn;k u dHkh T;knk fn;k u dHkh de fn;kA ftruh fdjk;s dh jlhns eSus nkf[ky dh gS og lc 500 :0 fdjk;s ds fglkc ls gSA eS lky Hkj dk fdjk;k ,d ckj esa ugh nsrk Fkk cfYd dbZ nQk esa dbZ dbZ eghus dk fdjk;k nsrk FkkA nsrk ges'k 500 :0 ekgokj ds fglkc lsA eq>s /;ku ugh fd eSus tks jlhns nkf[ky dh gS og fdrus fdrus :0 dh gS vkSj fdrus fdrus eghus dh gSA eSus fdjk;k dHkh Hkh bl izdkj ugh fn;k fd oks jkmaM fQxj esa u gks tc Hkh fn;k 500 :0 ds fglkc ls fn;k pkgs dHkh fn;k gksA mlesa 100&200 u de fn;k u T;knk fn;kA dkxt la0 34x o 35x jlhn 500 :0 izfrekg ds fdjk;s ds fglkc esa gS ;k ugh eS ugh crk ldrkA eSus 40]000:0 oknh dks nsuk crkrk gWw mldh fy[kr yh Fkh ftl ij jlhnh fVdV yxk gksuk eq>s /;ku gSA eSus jlhns fVdV yxk dkxt odhy lkgc dks fn;k Fkk mUgksus nkf[ky fd;k u ugh fd;k eq>s ugh irkA eSa ugh crk ldrk fd :0 40]000 gtkj dk nkf[ky dkxt -------------- ;k ughA eS fnu] rkjh[k] eghuk ugh crk ldrk ysfdu eSus :0 1997 esa fn;s FksA eS vkSj ljnkj th ds vykok :0 ds ysu nsu esa dksbZ ugh FkkA eq> ij bl ckr dk dksbZ lcwr ugh gS fd eq> ij :i;s Fks Lo;a dgk eq> ij :i;s Fks tks ?kj ij j[ks Fks ?kj ls ykdj fn;s FksA ;g dguk xyr gS fd eSus oknh dks 40]000 :0 ,MokUl u fn;s gksA ;g dguk Hkh xyr gS fd oknh us eq>s 40]000 :0 dh jlhn u nh gksA ;g dguk xyr gS fd tks fdjk;kukek eS crkrk g¡w mlesa fy[kh 'krsZ ua0 5]6]8]9]10]11]12] o 13 oknh o esjs chp dHkh r; u gqbZ gksA dkxt la[;k 14x esjs gkFk dk fy[kk gqvk ugh gS vkSj u gh bl ij esjs gLrk{kj gSA dkxt la[;k 14x ij eSus vius gLrk{kj o gLrfyf[k dh tk¡p gLrfyfi fo'ks"kK ls djk;k u ugh eq>s ugh irkA vxj ugh djk;h rks ;g Hkh ugh crk ldrk fd D;ksa ugh djk;hA ;g dguk xyr gS fd tks esjs vkSj oknh ds chp fdjk;snkjh dh 'krsZ r; gq;h gS os lc eSus 14x ds ek/;e ls oknh dks Hksth gks vkSj 14x ij esjs gLrk{kj gksA ;g dguk xyr gS fd eSus txthr flag dks dHkh dksbZ fdjk;k u fn;k gksA ;g dguk Hkh xyr gS fd eq> ij 5 vizSy 1998 esa fdjk;k cdk;k gSA eSus Jh Qty vgen ,MoksdsV dh ekQZr izfrokni= 29x izLrqr fd;k gS ftldh iqf"V es 30x 'kiFki= fn;k gSA 27x odkyrukek eSus nkf[ky fd;k gSA 154 x lk{; 'kiFki= Hkh eSus nkf[ky fd;k gSA mijksDr odkyrukesa ij izfroknh --------- esa fn;s x;s 'kiFki= esa o xzkg;~ 'kiFki= 154x esjk lgh irk fy[kk gqvkA bu irks ij eq>s Mkd ls i= Hkstk tk, rks eq>s feysxkA esjs lk{; 'kiFki= 154x esjk uke irk] eqUuk yky iq= :ipUn fuoklh eks0 cjcyky dLck eqjknkckn fy[kk gqvk gSA 7x dkcZu izfrfyfi uksfVl esa Hkh ;gh irk fy[kk gSA ;g dguk xyr gS fd eq>s oknh dh vksj ls Jh lq/khj xqIrk eaxy ,MoksdsV us 7x dk vly uksfVl jft0 jlhn 9x ds ek/;e eas eq>s Hkstk gks ftldh ,0Mh0 10x gSA ;g dguk Hkh xyr gS fd 10x ,0Mh0 ij esjs vly gLrk{kj gksA ;g dguk xyr gS fd eq>s mDr uksfVl 9-3-2000 dks izkIr gks x;k gksA eSus iksLVesu ds f[kykQ dksbZ dk;Zokgh ugh dh esjh iksLVeSu ls dksbZ nq'euh ugh gSA dkxt la[;k 32x ds iSjk uEcj 2 esa ;g ckr xyr fy[kh gS fd fuekZ.k dk;Z iwjk gks pqdk gSA bl edku esa dksbZ fuekZ.k ugh gqvkA eS ;g ugh crk ldrk fd dkxt la0 32x esa mijksDr ckr dSls vk x;hA eSus ,slk dksbZ dkxt nkf[ky ugh fd;k gS fd esjs vkSj oknh ds chp esa fdlh Bsds dh dksbZ 'krsZ r; gq;h gks Lo;a dgk Bsdk tqckuh r; gqvk FkkA eSus Bsds dh jde olwy djus ds fy, ljnkj txthr flag ds fo:) dksbZ nkok ysdj dksVZ ;k fdlh nhokuh U;k;ky; esa nkf[ky ugh fd;kA ;g dguk xyr gS fd esjs vkSj oknh ds chp fdlh Bsds dksbZ ckrphr u gq;h gks vkSj mUgksus eq>s Bsdk u fn;k gksA eSus QksVksxzkQ nkf[ky fd;s gS tks QksVksxzkQj us [khps Fks eS QksVksxzkQj dk uke ugh crk ldrkA ;g dguk xyr gS fd tks QksVksxzkQ 105@1 yk0 105@10 nkf[ky fd;s gS og ml lEifRr esa u gks tks eq>s fdjk;s ij nh x;h gksA ;g dguk xyr gS fd tks QksVksxzkQ eSus nkf[ky fd;s gSA og fookfnr lEifRr ds u gksA ;g dguk xyr gS fd eSus 5 vizSy 1998 esa okn izLrqr gksus rd oknh dks dksbZ fdjk;k u fn;k gks vkSj fdjk;k vnk djus esa pwd dh gksA ;g dguk lgh gS fd eSus okn izLrqr gksus ds mijkUr vktrd dksbZ fdjk;k oknh ds i{k u rks U;k;ky; esa tek fd;k gS vkSj u oknh dks fn;k gSA** ;g dguk xyr gS fd tc eSus edku fdjk;s ij fy[kk gks mlesa 4&5 lky igys dk cuk gqvk gksA**
6. The alleged rent agreement dated 05.11.1997 for more than 12 months' tenancy, is unregistered. It could not be proved by the defendant-tenant/ petitioner. He could not file even the alleged receipts of advance money of Rs.40,000/-. In his afore-quoted cross-examination, he stated that he was not paying rent once in a year but he was paying rent of several months together. He further stated that he always paid rent in round figure. Thus, his own cross-examination falsifies rent receipts, i.e. paper Nos.33ga, 34ga and 35ga. The rent receipt 35ga is not in round figure. The payment of advance money of Rs.40,000/- could not be proved by him by producing any evidence. He himself admitted that he has neither paid any rent after presentation of the suit by the plaintiff-landlord nor deposited any amount of rent in court.
7. The Judge Small Cause Court considered in detail each and every evidence filed by the parties and recorded finding of fact that the defendant-tenant/ petitioner defaulted payment of rent. The findings of fact recorded by the Judge Small Cause Court in S.C.C. suit was upheld by the revisional court in S.C.C. Revision No.19 of 2018. The defendant-tenant/ petitioner could not point out any perversity in the findings of fact recorded by the courts below with regard to rent receipts being paper Nos.33ga, 34ga and 35ga and non-payment of rent by him. It has also been admitted before me that after institution of the suit, the defendant-tenant/ petitioner has not paid any amount towards rent to the plaintiff-landlord/ respondent nor deposited it in the court. Thus, the tenant-petitioner was proved to be defaulter in payment of rent.
8. For all the reasons afore-stated, I do not find any illegality in the impugned judgments. The petition is devoid of merit and is, therefore, dismissed with costs.
Order Date :- 17.09.2019 NLY