Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

17. The learned Judge, Small Cause Court, Amroha, Moradabad in the said judgment and order dated 5-8-1998, however, did not accept the plea of the petitioner (defendant) regarding the invalidity of the said notice nor did the learned Judge, Small Cause Court, Amroha, Moradabad accept the plea of the petitioner (defendant) that the respondent (plaintiff-landlord) was estopped by its own conduct. Copy of the said judgment and order dated 5-8-1998 passed by the learned Judge, Small Cause Court, Amroha, Moradabad has been filed as Annexure 7 to the Writ Petition.

29A. I have considered the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record.

30. Let us first consider the submissions Nos. 1 and 2 made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner (defendant).

31. As noted in the earlier part of this judgment, the learned Judge, Small Cause Court, Amroha, Moradabad in his judgment and order dated 5-8-1998, inter-alia, held that it was admitted to the parties that the disputed shop was Wakf Property and, therefore, in view of the provisions of Section 2(bbb) of the Rent Act, the disputed shop was not covered under the provisions of the Rent Act. Reference in this regard may be made to the findings recorded by the learned Judge, Small Cause Court, Amroha, Moradabad on Issue No. 5 in the said judgment and order dated 5-8-1998.

32. The said finding of the learned Judge, Small Cause Court, Amroha, Moradabad does not appear to have been questioned in S.C.C. Revision No. 53 of 1998 as is evident from a perusal of the judgment and order dated 26-10-2002 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Court No. 9, Moradabad in the said S.C.C. Revision No. 53 of 1998, nor has the said finding been questioned in the present Writ Petition before this Court.

33. The learned Judge, Small Cause Court, Amroha, Moradabad in the said judgment and order dated 5-8-1998, however, held that the petitioner (defendant) was entitled to the benefit of Section 114 of the Transfer of Property Act.

34. Reference in this regard may be made to the findings recorded by the learned Judge, Small Cause Court, Amroha Moradabad on Issue Nos. 1, 2 and 4 in the said judgment and order dated 5-8-1998.

35. The learned Additional District Judge, Court No. 9, Moradabad in the said judgment and order dated 26th October, 2002 passed in the said S.C.C. Revision No. 53 of 1998 did not agree with the said findings recorded by the learned Judge, Small Cause Court, Amroha, Moradabad in the said judgment and order dated 5-8-1998. The learned Additional District Judge, Court No. 9, Moradabad in the said judgment and order dated 26th October 2002 held that the petitioner (defendant) was not entitled to the benefit of Section 114 of the Transfer of Property Act.