# Dinesh Sahu Revisionist v. Krishna Pal Yadav

- **Citation:** (2016) 8 ILRA 356
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2016-08-01
- **Bench:** Attau Rahman Masoodi
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/dinesh-sahu-revisionist-v-krishna-pal-yadav-44254
- **Pages:** 5

## Text

356 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

(2016) 8 ILRA 356
REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 01.08.2016

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ATTAU RAHMAN MASOODI, J.

S.C.C. Revision No.- 4 Of 2016

Dinesh Sahu ...Revisionist
Versus
Krishna Pal Yadav ...Opposite Party

Counsel for Revisionist:
Ravi Nath , Jitendra Kumar Saxena

Counsel for Opposite Party:
Vikas Sharma

Present revision under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887 assails the judgement
rendered by the court below in SCC Suit No. 0700012 of 2013 whereby the suit filed by the respondentplaintiff was decreed and a decree of eviction coupled with the arrears of rent at the rate of Rs. 1700/- per
month alongwith damages has been issued in his favour.

The revisionist is a tenant of the shop in question. The revisionist having committed default in the payment of
rent was issued a notice dated 4.12.2012 which was served on him on 5.12.2012. The notice issued to the
revisionist was to be complied with on or before 4.1.2013 insofar as the payment of arrears of rent is
concerned. The failure on the part of the revisionist-tenant in making payment of rent as claimed in terms of
notice dated 4.12.2012, gave rise to the aforesaid suit which was filed on Feb. 19, 2013.

Court observed that the court below while adjudicating upon the issue at hand has failed to consider the
material admission of the landlord which ought to have been considered in determination of the real question,
namely, whether the revisionist-defendant committed default in the payment of rent until the period of notice
and recording a finding that the revisionist was in arrears of rent as on the date of issuance of notice clearly
lacks the sanction of statute and such an illegality on the face of the impugned judgement, calls for
interference under the revisional jurisdiction of this Court envisaged by virtue of Section 25 of the Provincial
Small Cause Courts Act, 1887.

The impugned judgement passed by the court below suffers from a patent illegality and the for the reasons
recorded above, the same is hereby set aside and the matter is relegated to the court below for consideration.

The revision thus stands allowed in part.

 (Delivered by Hon'ble Attau Rahman Masoodi, J.)

1. Heard Sri R.N. Tilhari, learned counsel for the revisionist and Sri Vikas Sharma, learned
counsel, who has put in appearance on behalf of the respondent-plaintiff.
8 All. Dinesh Sahu Vs Krishna Pal Yadav
357
2. This revision under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887 assails
the judgement rendered by the court below in SCC Suit No. 0700012 of 2013 whereby the suit filed
by the respondent-plaintiff was decreed and a decree of eviction coupled with the arrears of rent at
the rate of Rs. 1700/- per month alongwith damages has been issued in his favour.

3. The brief facts of the case are that the revisionist is a tenant of the shop in question. The
revisionist having committed default in the payment of rent was issued a notice dated 4.12.2012
which was served on him on 5.12.2012. The notice issued to the revisionist was to be complied
with on or before 4.1.2013 insofar as the payment of arrears of rent is concerned. The failure on the
part of the revisionist-tenant in making payment of rent as claimed in terms of notice dated
4.12.2012, gave rise to the aforesaid suit which was filed on Feb. 19, 2013. The first date of hearing
of the suit was 23.5.2013 and the position of facts to this extent is undisputed between the parties. It
is also undisputed that the revisionist-tenant made the compliance of Order XV Rule 5 CPC read
with Section 20 (4) of the Rent Control Act by depositing the rent in terms of the notice dated
4.12.2012 inclusive of interest and damage coupled with a misc. expense justified to be deposited
against the cost. Oral evidence was led before the court below which became a subject matter of
consideration in the light of the pleadings on record.

4. According to the revisionist he had not fallen in default insofar as the payment of rent is
concerned whereas the suit was filed by the landlord/respondent on the premise that there was a
clear default in payment of rent. Not only that the payment of rent was disputed by the landlord but
a case of clear default claiming higher rent was pleaded against the revisionist in the plaint filed by
him before the court below. Issues came to be framed in the light of pleadings and evidence was
accordingly adduced. Landlord Krishna Pal Yadav was cross-examined by the revisionist-tenant
whose deposition reads as under:

"EkSusa vfUre ckj 31 fnlEcj] 2012 dks fnus'k lkgw ls fdjk;k ysus ls bUdkj fd;k FkkA ckn esa xokg us
crk;k fd Qjojh ekg dk fdjk;k fnus'k lkgw us ugha fn;k tks tuojh o Qjojh dk fdjk;k FkkA fnukad 08&07&2012 dks
nks&rhu yksxks ds lkeus dgk Fkk fd esjh nqdku cu x;h gS vkSj eSa [kkyh djds fdjk;k ns nw¡xkA"

5. The aforesaid statement is virtually the foundation of the present revision. Learned
counsel for the revisionist raised the following points for consideration.

6. Learned counsel for the revisionist argued that the judgement impugned in the present
revision suffers from a manifest error of law; firstly on the ground that the court below while
adjudicating upon the aspect of default in payment of rent has not recorded a clear finding that the
tenant defaulted in making payment of rent due upto the period of notice period i.e. 4.1.2013 as is
evident from the finding recorded to the effect that the revisionist tenant has failed to pay the entire
rent as on the date of issuance of notice. This finding according to the learned counsel for the
revisionist does not satisfy the requirement of Section 20 (2) (a) of the Rent Control Act as the shop
in question is regulated under the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and
Eviction) Act, 1972.
358 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

7. The second submission raised by the learned counsel for the revisionist is that there
being a clear admission on the part of the landlord-respondent in terms recorded above, which
clearly was an admission to be construed in favour of the revisionist for treating him to be a tenant
not in default of payment of rent for the reason that the landlord himself has admitted to have
refused to take the rent tendered by him. Once there was a clear admission on the part of the
landlord having not accepted the rent tendered by the revisionist during the period of notice on
31.12.2002, the revisionist could not be treated to be a defaulter and consequently, a suit for
eviction was not maintainable against him. The submissions on the count of striking off defence
and the protection under Section 20 (4) have also been been advanced.

8. Learned counsel for the respondent has vehemently refuted the submissions made by the
learned counsel for the revisionist and while making his submissions, he has clearly made out from
the material on record that the benefit of Section 20 (4) was not available to the revisionist being a
joint owner of a house alongwith his brother. Insofar as the striking off defence under Order XV
Rule 5 is concerned, learned counsel for the respondent, drawing attention of the Court to the
conduct of the revisionist-tenant, as regards the deposit of rent, has pointed out that the rent
admissible according to the revisionist was Rs. 1200/- and the revisionist having failed to establish
this ground before the court below, remained in arrears of rent, as such, the benefit of striking off
defence was was not available to him.

9. From the perusal of record it is noticed that the deposit made by the revisionist-tenant in
the manner explained in the application filed on 23.5.2013 satisfies the deposit of rent as envisaged
under the statutory provision and the deposit of rent as claimed in the notice and adjustment of the
amount already paid through money order does in no way prejudice his right to defend and as such
the submission made by the learned counsel for the respondent on this ground falls and is not
acceptable. The aspect of admission by the respondent to refuse the receipt of rent on 31.12.2012 is
crucial to the very continuance of tenancy or termination thereof by notice. From the perusal of
issue no. 4 on this aspect of the matter when scrutinized in the light of admission made, it is
gathered that the court below has not dealt with the admission of the landlord to refuse the receipt
of rent during the currency of the period of notice on 31.12.2012 at all and no finding on that
premise has been recorded one way or the other so as to justify the revisionist having become a
defaulter as to the payment of rent. Failure to consider this relevant aspect/evidence, to arrive at
any decision for or against the tenant, is a material irregularity which is reflected on the face of
record. This irregularity further goes to substantiate the case of the revisionist-defendant on the
ground that the court below has failed to return a finding as regards the default in the payment of
rent as on the date of expiry of notice whereas the only finding recorded by the court below is to
the effect that the revisionist-tenant failed to deposit the arrears of rent as on the date of issuance of
notice. In support of his submission, learned counsel for the revisionist has relied upon the
decisions reported in 2006 (2) ARC 256 (Smt. Zohra and others v. IVth A.D.J., Varanasi and
others); 2000 (1) Alld. Rent Cases 653 ( Gokaran Singh v. Ist Additional District and Sessions
Judge, Hardoi and others); AIR 1981 SC 2085 (Ramji Dayawala & Sons (P.) Ltd. v. Invest
Import); and 1983 Alld. Rent Cases 640 (Janardan Pandey v. Ist Addl. District Judge, Nainital
and others).
8 All. Dinesh Sahu Vs Krishna Pal Yadav
359
10. Learned counsel for the respondent in order to distinguish the judgements relied upon,
has cited the case of Kalyan Singh Chouhan v. C.P. Joshi [2011(29)LCD 512.

11. Considering the rival submissions and in the light of judgements placed reliance upon, I
am of the considered opinion that the court below while adjudicating upon the issue at hand has
failed to consider the material admission of the landlord which ought to have been considered in
determination of the real question, namely, whether the revisionist-defendant committed default in
the payment of rent until the period of notice and recording a finding that the revisionist was in
arrears of rent as on the date of issuance of notice clearly lacks the sanction of statute and such an
illegality on the face of the impugned judgement, calls for interference under the revisional
jurisdiction of this Court envisaged by virtue of Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts
Act, 1887.

12. The impugned judgement passed by the court below suffers from a patent illegality and
the for the reasons recorded above, the same is hereby set aside and the matter is relegated to the
court below for consideration of all the material after affording opportunity to the parties
concerned. The court below shall accordingly decide the proceedings afresh on the issue involved
in which the revisionist undertakes to cooperate.

13. Since the matter is being remanded to the court below for determination of the rival
rights, therefore, until the culmination of proceedings, a rent of Rs. 2500/- per month shall be
deposited by the revisionist-tenant before the court below with effect from Feb. 2016,

14. The revision thus stands allowed in part. No order as to cost.
-----------
360 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

(2016) 8 ILRA 360
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 31.08.2016

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MRS. VIJAY LAKSHMI, J.

Application U/S 482 No.- 12028 Of 2015
&
Application U/S 482 No.- 33103 Of 2014

Smt. Nawab Begum & Ors. ...Applicant
Versus
State Of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicant:
Rajjan Singh, M.J. Akhtar, Md. Imran Khan, V.M. Zaidi

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
Govt. Advocate, Manish Tiwari

Criminal law - Section 482 Cr.P.C. - Quashing of entire proceedings - Case Crime No. 1042 of 2012 -
Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B, 506 and 34 I.P.C. - Forged Will - Fake death certificate - Mutation in
revenue records - Protest petition - Charge-sheet - Cognizance - Inordinate delay in lodging the F.I.R. -
Disputed question of fact - Prima facie case - Disputed defence - Pre-trial - Discharge application -
Applications dismissed.

The applicants by means of these applications, have invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court with prayer
to quash the entire proceedings of Case Crime No. 1042 of 2012, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B,
506 and Section 34 I.P.C., Police Station Kotwali, district Muzaffar Nagar and to stay the effect and operation
of the impugned orders dated 1.4.2014 and 12.12.2014 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Muzaffar Nagar
taking cognizance on the charge-sheets filed under aforesaid sections in this matter.(Para 2)

Held: (Para:-16-18)
1.The applicants cannot be given any benefit on the basis of aforesaid judgment as the facts of the instant
case are entirely different. In the case of Savitri Pandey (supra), F.I.R. was lodged after a lapse of 19 years,
but it was lodged against as many as fifteen persons, without even assigning their separate roles. To the
contrary, in the instant case, specific roles have been assigned to the applicants and delay has also been
explained.
2.In wake of above discussion, both the applications appear to be devoid of merit and are liable to be
dismissed. The prayer for quashing the entire proceedings and impugned orders passed in the aforesaid cases
is liable to be refused.
3.Accordingly both these applications are dismissed. Interim order, if any stands vacated.

Case Law discussed:
1.R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1960 S.C. 866 - para 13
2.State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 426 - para 13
3.State of Bihar Vs. P.P. Sharma, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 192 - para 13