Allahabad High Court
Dr. Gopal Narain Sahgal S/O Late G N ... vs District Audit Officer Sitapur Local ... on 12 September, 2025
Author: Pankaj Bhatia
Bench: Pankaj Bhatia
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:55887
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
LUCKNOW
WRIT - A No. - 1000145 of 2010
Dr. Gopal Narain Sahgal S/O Late G N Sahgal
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
District Audit Officer Sitapur Local Funds And Anr.
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s)
:
Manish Mathur, Ripu Daman Shahi
Counsel for Respondent(s)
:
C.S.C.
Court No. - 6
HON'BLE PANKAJ BHATIA, J.
1. Heard Shri Arun Pratap Singh, Advocate holding brief of Shri R.D. Shahi, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel.
2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging an order dated 07.10.2010, whereby the revision preferred by the respondent under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Court Act, 1887 was allowed.
3. The facts in brief are that the property in question owned by the petitioner was leased out to the respondent vide registered lease deed dated 27.04.1984 for a period of three years on a monthly rent of Rs.600/- w.e.f. 01.05.1984 and after the efflux of time, i.e., of three years, lease was not renewed and thereafter the tenancy continued on month to month basis. As the respondent defaulted in payment of rent and stopped paying the rent, a composite notice was issued on 04.05.2007 under Section 80 C.P.C. read with Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, whereby the tenancy was determined and demand for arrears of rent was made. The said notice is on record as Annexure No.2 to the writ petition. As the notice was not complied with and the premises was not vacated, the petitioner instituted a SCC Suit No.5 of 2007 claiming a decree of ejectment and arrears of rent vide plaint, which is contained in Annexure No.7 to the writ petition. The said plaint was contested by the respondent by filing a written statement, which is on record as Annexure No.8 to the writ petition, in which the allegations were denied. In the said written statement, it was admitted that certain amounts of rent could not be paid on account of there being a miscommunication and the amount was paid on 10.09.2007 amounting to Rs.8,000/-. With regard to the notice, it was stated in para 4 that after receiving the notice and perusing the same, no need was felt for giving a reply to the same. Based upon the said, the JSC Court framed as many as 11 points of determination. The suit was ultimately decreed holding that there was a default in payment of the monthly rent, as such, a decree of ejectment and arrears of rent was passed on 29.05.2009. The said judgement was challenged by the respondent by preferring a revision. In the revisional court, three points were framed for determination. The first point was whether the notice under Section 106 of Transfer of property Act read with Section 80 of the CPC was in accordance with law and the suit was maintainable based upon the said notice. The second point was whether there was any due of water tax and rent.
4. While deciding the point of determination No.1, the court analyzed the composite notice sent under Section 106 of Transfer of property Act read with Section 80 of the CPC and held that the notice was not in accordance with law. The revisional court was of the view that the notice ought to have stated the cause of action, the default and should also state that as the rent of more than 4 months is due, the tenancy is determined. In the absence of the said assertions in the said notice, the same was held to be invalid notice. The composite notice sent is on record as Annexure No.2 to the writ petition. In the said notice, in para 3, the tenancy was specifically determined and in para 4, the arrears of water tax amounting to Rs.8,000/- were also specifically alleged. It was also stated that in the event of non-compliance, the damages could be payable along with interest.
5. The revisional order is wholly bad in law for the reason that no such defence was taken in the written statement filed by the respondent before the JSC Court. Even point of determination with regard to the validity of the notice was not determined by the JSC Court. The revisional court has carved out an entirely new case without there being any pleadings to that effect.
6. It is fairly well settled that the scope of revision under Section 25 of the Act is not that of an appellate court and is circumcised only to evaluate the errors in the appreciation of evidence or the decision making process. Once the pleadings in the written statement filed by the respondent with regard to validity or correctness of notice, was missing, the JSC Court rightly decreed the suit.
7. The revisional court has clearly transgressed the parameter of the jurisdiction conferred upon the revisional court by virtue of Section 25 of the Act and on that ground alone, the order impugned cannot be sustained and is quashed.
8. The decree passed by the JSC Court on 29.05.2009 is affirmed.
9. The said decree shall be executed in accordance with law positively within a period of four months from today.
10. The petition stands disposed of in terms of above.
(Pankaj Bhatia,J.) September 12, 2025 Ashutosh