# Jag Mohan Agarwal v. Smt. Kanchan Kumari Jain

- **Citation:** (2023) 11 ILRA 222
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2023-10-31
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Review Application No. 432 of 2023
- **Bench:** Neeraj Tiwari
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/jag-mohan-agarwal-v-smt-kanchan-kumari-jain-49426
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

A. Civil Law - Constitution of India, 1950 -
Article 226 - Review - Review application
by a subsequent counsel not maintainable
- Writ was filed and argued by one
counsel whereas the review application
was filed by another counsel. Held - A
review/recall/modification
application
filed by a subsequent counsel is not
maintainable and is nothing but an
attempt to delay the compliance of the
judgment;
therefore,
the
review
application is liable to be dismissed
with exemplary cost. The practice of
engagement of a new counsel for filing
review/recall/modification
must
be
deprecated. Granting such permission
would amount to gross misuse of the
process of law and an attempt to raise
new arguments for re-hearing of the
case on merits. Mere obtaining of a
"No
Objection
Certificate"
is
not
sufficient
for
filing
of
a
review
application by a subsequent counsel.
(Para 13)
Dismissed. (E-5)

## Text

222 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

21. Let the review application be
consigned to records.
----------
(2023) 11 ILRA 222
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 31.10.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE NEERAJ TIWARI, J.

Civil Misc. Review Application No. 432 of 2023
In
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 7428 of 2023

Jag Mohan Agarwal ...Petitioner
Versus
Smt. Kanchan Kumari Jain ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Balwinder Singh Suri, Sri Mukesh Kumar
Pandey

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Sudeep Harkauli

A. Civil Law - Constitution of India, 1950 -
Article 226 - Review - Review application
by a subsequent counsel not maintainable
- Writ was filed and argued by one
counsel whereas the review application
was filed by another counsel. Held - A
review/recall/modification
application
filed by a subsequent counsel is not
maintainable and is nothing but an
attempt to delay the compliance of the
judgment;
therefore,
the
review
application is liable to be dismissed
with exemplary cost. The practice of
engagement of a new counsel for filing
review/recall/modification
must
be
deprecated. Granting such permission
would amount to gross misuse of the
process of law and an attempt to raise
new arguments for re-hearing of the
case on merits. Mere obtaining of a
"No
Objection
Certificate"
is
not
sufficient
for
filing
of
a
review
application by a subsequent counsel.
(Para 13)
Dismissed. (E-5)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Neeraj Tiwari, J.)

1. Heard Sri Balwinder Singh Suri
along with Sri Mukesh Kumar Pandey,
learned counsel for applicant/petitioner and
Sri Sudeep Harkauli, learned counsel for
opposite party/respondent.

2. Present review application has been
filed seeking following reliefs:-

"(a)
To
allow
this
review
application by setting aside the impugned
judgment and order dated 03.08.2023 and
hear the matter on merit in the presence of
counsel of the Applicant/Petitioner.

(b) And/or to stay the effect and
operation of the order, judgment dated
03.08.2023 passed in Civil Misc. Writ
Petition (A) No. 7428 of 2023 (Judgement
dated 03.08.2023 Reserved on 23.05.2023
and Delivered on 03.08.2023) till the
Reserved on 23.05.2023 and Delivered on
03.08.2023) final disposal of the present
Review Application, failing thereby will
result in express prejudice and irreparable
loss and injury to the Applicant/Petitioner.

(c) And/or to allow to bring on
record certain legal documents which are
germane and which after due diligence
could not be filed at the time of passing of
order and judgment by this Hon'ble Court
in Civil Misc. Writ Petition (A) No. 7428
of 2023, Reserved on 23.05.2023 and
Delivered on 03.08.2023.

(d)And/ or to summon the entire
record of the Petition/Writ (A) No. 7428 of
2023.

(e) And/or to summon the entire
lower court record as well pertaining to
both proceedings- under section 10 of U.P.
Act No. 16 of 2021 bearing case No. 696 of
11 All. Jag Mohan Agarwal Vs. Smt. Kanchan Kumari Jain
223
2022 pending before the Rent Authority,
Agra and Execution proceedings."

3. Brief facts of the case are that WritA No. 7428 of 2023 has been filed by Sri
Pankaj Agarwal, upon which a detail
counter affidavit has also been filed by Sri
Sudeep Harkauli, learned counsel for
opposite party/respondent. Final hearing of
the writ petition took place on 23.05.2023.
Sri Pankaj Agarwal has argued the case on
behalf of petitioner whereas it was argued
by Sri Sudeep Harkauli on behalf of
opposite party/respondent and ultimately,
judgment was reserved on the same day.
Later on it was pronounced on 03.08.2023
dismissing the writ petition.

4. Now, Sri Balwinder Singh Suri
along with Sri Mukesh Kumar Pandey,
Advocates
has
filed
present
review
application for reviewing the order dated
03.08.2023.

5. Sri Harkauli has raised preliminary
objection about the maintainability of
review application. He submitted that WritA No. 7428 of 2023 was filed and argued
by Sri Pankaj Agrawal whereas present
review application has been filed by Sri
Balwinder Singh Suri along with Sri
Mukesh Kumar Pandey, therefore, in the
light of pronouncements made by Apex
Court as well as this Court, review
application is not maintainable. In support of
his contention, he has placed reliance upon
the judgments of this Court passed in Ram
Prasad Shukla vs. Suraj Lal and Ors.; 2017
(122) ALR 144, Mohd. Kaleem vs. Sumitra
Devi and Ors.; 2021 (144) ALR 651 and
Ramesh Kumar Sharma vs. M/s. Gool
Poput and others; 2021 (8) ADJ 123.

6. Sri Suri, learned counsel for
applicant opposed the submissions of Sri
Sudeep Harkauli, learned counsel for
opposite party and submitted that review
application is maintainable. In support of
his contention, he placed reliance upon the
judgments of this Court as well as Apex
Court in the matters of Sharda Prasad
Mishra vs. State of U.P. and others (Writ-A
No. 60191 of 2006) decided on 10.10.2013,
Uma Nath Pandey and Ors. vs. State of
U.P. and Anr.; 2009 (75) ALR 329
(Criminal Appeal No. 471 of 2009)(arising
out of SLP (Crl.) No. 6382 of 2007) and
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs.
Rajendra Singh and others; (2000) 3
Supreme Court Cases 581.

7. I have considered the rival
submissions of counsel for parties and
perused the records as well as judgments
cited above.

8. This fact is undisputed that writ
petition was filed and argued by Sri Pankaj
Agarwal on behalf of petitioner. Further,
present review application is filed by Sri
Balwinder Singh Suri along with Sri
Mukesh Kumar Pandey on behalf of
applicant/petitioner, who were not the
counsels in writ petition. Sri Pankaj
Agarwal is also not present in Court at the
time of argument of review application,
therefore, issue before this Court is to
decide as to whether, present review
application is maintainable or not.

9. Learned counsel for applicant has
placed reliance upon the judgment of this
Court in the matter of Sharda Prasad
Mishra (supra). From the perusal of the
said judgment, it is apparently clear that it
is not in favour of applicant rather against
him. The only fact which is pointed out by
learned counsel for applicant is about "No
Objection Certificate". In the present case,
there is no "No Objection Certificate" in
224 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
favour of applicant from earlier counsel.
Even otherwise, mere obtaining of "No
Objection Certificate" is not suffice for
filing of review application by a subsequent
counsel. Relevant parts of the said
judgement is quoted below:-

"When the case was initially
heard one Sri S.K.Singh had appeared for
the respondent nos.2 to 7. This review
application has been filed by the learned
counsel, who was not the counsel for the
respondent when the judgement was
passed.

The Supreme Court in the case of
Tamil Nadu Electricity Board and another
vs. N. Raju Reddiear and another A.I.R.
1997 SC 1005 has held that review petition
cannot be entertained at the behest of a
counsel or a person, who had not appeared
before the Court or was not party in the
main case. Para-1 of the judgement reads as
under:-

"1. It is a sad spectacle that a new
practice unbecoming and not worthy of or
conducive to the profession is cropping up.
Mr. Mariaputham, Advocate-on-Record had
filed vakalatnama for the petitionerrespondent when the special leave petition
was filed. After the matter was disposed of,
Mr. V. Balachandran, Advocate had filed a
petition for review. That was also dismissed
by this Court on 24-4-1996. Yet another
advocate, Mr. S.U.K. Sagar, has now been
engaged to file the present application
styled as "application for clarification", on
the specious plea that the order is not clear
and unambiguous. When an appeal/special
leave petition is dismissed, except in rare
cases where error of law or fact is apparent
on the record, no review can be filed; that
too by the Advocate-on-Record who neither
appeared nor was party in the main case. It
is salutary to note that the court spends
valuable time in deciding a case. Review
petition is not, and should not be, an
attempt for hearing the matter again on
merits. Unfortunately, it has become, in
recent time, a practice to file such review
petitions as a routine; that too, with change
of counsel, without obtaining consent of the
Advocate-on- Record at earlier stage. This
is not conducive to healthy practice of the
Bar which has the responsibility to
maintain the salutary practice of profession.
In Review Petition No.2670 of 1996 in CA
No.1867 of 1992, a Bench of three Judges
to which one of us, K. Ramaswamy,J., was
a member, has held as under:

"The
record
of
the
appeal
indicates that Shri Sudarsh Menon was the
Advocate-on-Record when the appeal was
heard and decided on merits. The review
petition has been filed by Shri Prabir
Chowdhury who was neither an arguing
counsel when the appeal was heard nor was
he present at the time of arguments. It is
unknown on what basis he has written the
grounds in the review petition as if it is a
rehearing of an appeal against our order. He
did not confine to the scope of review. It
would not be in the interest of the
profession to permit such practice. That
part, he has not obtained " No Objection
Certificate" from the Advocate-on-Record
in the appeal, in spite of the fact that
Registry
had
informed
him
of
the
requirement for doing so. Filing of the "No
Objection Certificate" would be the basis
for him to come on record. Otherwise, the
Advocate-on-Record is answerable to the
Court. The failure to obtain the "No
Objection Certificate" from the erstwhile
counsel has disentitled him to file the
review petition. Even otherwise, the review
petition has no merits. It is an attempt to
reargue the matter on merits. On these
grounds, we dismiss the review petition".

The review application is ,
therefore, not maintainable. "
11 All. Jag Mohan Agarwal Vs. Smt. Kanchan Kumari Jain
225

10. He further placed reliance upon
the judgment of Apex Court in the matter
of Uma Nath Pandey (Supra). The said
judgment is also does not come in the
rescue of applicant for the very simple
reason that it is about the 'natural justice'.
The meaning of 'natural justice' is to
provide the opportunity of hearing and
rebuttal to both parties. Undisputedly,
present review application was filed by
applicant and after exchange of pleadings,
he was heard through his counsel Sri
Pankaj Agarwal at length. Thereafter
judgment was pronounced. Relevant parts
of the said judgement is quoted below:-

"6. Natural justice is another
name for commonsense justice. Rules of
natural justice are not codified canons. But
they are principles ingrained into the
conscience of man. Natural justice is the
administration of justice in a commonsense
liberal way. Justice is based substantially
on natural ideals and human values. The
administration of justice is to be freed from
the narrow and restricted considerations
which are usually associated with a
formulated
law
involving
linguistic
technicalities and grammatical niceties. It is
the substance of justice which has to
determine its form.

7.
The
expressions
"natural
justice" and "legal justice" do not present a
water-tight classification. It is the substance
of justice which is to be secured by both,
and whenever legal justice fails to achieve
this solemn purpose, natural justice is
called in aid of legal justice. Natural justice
relieves legal justice from unnecessary
technicality,
grammatical
pedantry
or
logical
prevarication.
It
supplies the
omissions of a formulated law. As Lord
Buckmaster said, no form or procedure
should ever be permitted to exclude the
presentation of a litigants' defence.

19. Natural justice is the essence
of fair adjudication, deeply rooted in
tradition and conscience, to be ranked as
fundamental. The purpose of following the
principles
of
natural
justice
is
the
prevention of miscarriage of justice."

11. Lastly, he has placed reliance
upon the judgment of Apex Court in the
matter of United India Insurance Co. Ltd.
(Supra). The said judgment is talking about
'fraud'. First of all, in writ petition, there is
no allegation of fraud against respondent,
therefore, a new fact cannot be brought on
record by way of filing review application.
Further, until review application is held
maintainable, said judgement cannot be
taken into consideration.

12. Sri Harkauli has relied upon the
judgment of this Court in Ram Prasad
Shukla (Supra), in which Court has clearly
held that review application filed by a new
counsel who had not argued the writ
petition is not maintainable. Relevant parts
of the said judgement is quoted below:-

"I also find substance in the
submission of the learned counsel for the
opposite party that the review petition is
not maintainable in view of the fact that it
has not been filed by the counsel, who had
argued the writ petition. I also find
substance in the submissions of the learned
counsel for the opposite party that the plea
of deposit under section 30(1) or 30(2) was
not agitated before the trial court in the
written statements. Therefore, now the
petitioner
cannot
travel
beyond
the
pleadings. "

13. The very same view is again taken
by this Court in the matter of Mohd
Kaleem (Supra), in which Court has taken
specific
view
that
a
226 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
review/recall/modification application filed
by subsequent counsel is not maintainable
and it is nothing but an attempt to delay the
compliance of judgement, therefore, review
application is liable to be dismissed with
exemplary cost. Relevant parts of the said
judgement is quoted below:-

"12. In view of the above, I am of
the
considered
opinion
that
the
review/recall/modification application by a
subsequent counsel is not maintainable. It
is nothing but to delay the compliance of
the judgment, therefore, exemplary cost is
required to be imposed upon the applicant
for delaying the compliance of judgment."

14. This issue again came before this
Court in Ramesh Kumar Sharma (Supra)
in which this Court relying upon the
judgment of Apex Court, has held that
review application filed by a subsequent
counsel is not maintainable. Relevant parts
of the said judgement is quoted below:-

"30. The fact as emanates from
the record reveals that Sri Radhey Shyam
Dwivedi
and
Rajesh
Dwivedi
were
counsels representing the applicants. The
Court noted the submission advanced by
the learned counsel for the respondents in
the judgment, therefore, in view of the
judgment of Apex Court in the case of
(Tamil Nadu Electricity Board and another)
(supra), the review petition at the behest of
another counsel is not maintainable.
Paragraph 1 of the judgment is being
extracted hereinbelow:

........................

........................

33. In the instant case, the matter
was argued on behalf of applicants by
original counsel, and review was filed by
Sri N.B. Nigam, Advocate who was not the
original counsel of the applicants, and even
after filing the review, the applicants have
changed the counsel and engaged a new
counsel Sri S.K. Chaturvedi. Therefore, this
Court is of the view that the review
application is not maintainable."

15. I have also perused the judgment
passed in Kaniz Fatma & Others Vs.
Additional District Judge & Others
[2008 (70) ALR 361], in which Court has
taken
very
same
view
that
review
application cannot be filed by subsequent
counsel. Relevant paragraph 25 is quoted
below :-

"25. I am therefore of the
considered view that once the writ petition
has been decided on merits, the scope of
review is very limited and successive
review applications are not maintainable.
The first review application has been filed
by a subsequent counsel Sri Khalil Ahmad
without consent of the original counsel who
IS alleged to have given a wrong
undertaking before the Court has neither
filed review application nor has appeared in
the Court to admit or deny the allegations
made against him. It would be laying down
a bad precedent to allow successive review
applications by subsequent counsel by
making allegations against the original
counsel engaged initially. In the first review
application the Court has considered all the
aspects of the matter in its judgment and
order dated 20.3.2007 by holding that the
matter cannot be reopened by engaging
another counsel."

16. Apex Court in the matter of Tamil
Nadu Electricity Board and Others Vs.
N. Raju Reddiar and others [AIR 1997
SC 1005] has reiterated the same view that
review application filed by a subsequent
counsel is not maintainable. Relevant
paragraph 1 is quoted below :-
11 All. Jag Mohan Agarwal Vs. Smt. Kanchan Kumari Jain
227

"1. It is a sad spectacle that new
practice
unbecoming
of
worthy
and
conducive to the profession is cropping up.
Mr. Mariaputham, Advocate-on-Record had
filed vakalatnama for the petitionerrespondent when the special leave petition
was filed. After the matter was disposed of,
Mr. V. Balachandran, Advocate had filed a
petition for review. That was also dismissed
by this Court on April 24, 1996. Yet another
advocate, Mr. S.U.K. Sagar, has now been
engaged to file the present application
styled as "application for clarification", on
the specious plea that the order is not clear
and unambiguous. When an appeal/special
leave petition is dismissed, except in rare
cases where error of law or fact is apparent
on the record, no review can be filed; that
too by the advocate on record who neither
appeared nor was party in the main case. It
is salutary to not that court spends valuable
time in deciding a case. Review petition is
not, and should not be, an attempt for
hearing the matter again on merits.
Unfortunately, it has become, in recent
time, a practice to file such review petitions
as a routine; that too, with change of
counsel, without obtaining consent of the
advocate on record at earlier stage. This is
not conducive to healthy practice of the Bar
which has the responsibility to maintain the
salutary practice of profession. In Review
Petition No.2670/96 in CA No.1867/92, a
Bench of three Judges to which one of us,
K. Ramaswamy,J., was a member, has held
as under:

"The
record
of
the
appeal
indicates that Shri Sudarsh Menon was
heard and decided on merits. The Review
Petition has been filed by Shri Prabir
Chowdhury who was neither an arguing
counsel when the appeal was heard nor was
he present at the time of arguments. It is
unknown on what basis he has written the
grounds in the Review Petition as if it is a
rehearing of an appeal against our order. He
did not confine to the scope of review. It
would be not in the interest of the
profession to permit such practice. That
part, he has not obtained " No Objection
Certificate" from the Advocate-on-Record
in the appeal, in spite of the fact that
Registry
had
informed
him
of
the
requirement for doing so. Filing of the "No
Objection Certificate" would be the basis
for him to come on record. Otherwise, the
Advocate-on-Record is answerable to the
Court. The failure to obtain the "No
Objection Certificate" from the erstwhile
counsel has disentitled him to file the
Review Petition. Even otherwise, the
Review Petition has no merits, It is an
attempt to reargue the matter on merits. On
these grounds, we dismiss the Review
Petition."

17. This Court in the matter of
Sidheswar Mishra Vs. State of U.P. &
Others [2006 (9) ADJ 427] has also
reiterated the settled provisions of law and
held that review application filed by a
subsequent counsel is not maintainable.
Relevant paragraph 14 is quoted below :-

14. The Court is not inclined to
open 'Pandora's Box' for the following
reasons-

Firstly: The law is well settled
that recall or review application can be
filed only by the counsel who had argued
the case and not by a subsequent counsel
who is engaged after the decision.

Secondly: The recall application
in the instant case is in the nature of review
application as the judgment has been
delivered on merits after hearing the
counsels for the parties and the prayer is to
recall the judgment and hear on merits
again.
228 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

Thirdly: When the recall filed by
Sri Ranjeet Saxena was listed Sri Brij Lal
Verma could not have been authorized by
Sri Ranjeet Saxena to argue the application
and the case on merits, the following
reasons.

(a)
Sri
Ranjeet
Saxena
is
appointed by the Corporation on its panel
to argue to argue its cases and Sri B.L.
Verma. The U.P. Power Corporation is a
Estate within the meaning of Article 12 of
the Constitution and the position of a
counsel on its panel is Akur standing
counsel appointed by the Government,

(b) Along with standing counsels,
brief holders are also appointed by the State
Government. If the Corporation had not
appointed any brief holders the counsel on
the panel cannot handover his government
brief to any counsel who is not on the panel
to argue government brief.

(c) In any event it was the duty of
Sri Ranjeet Saxena to have been present to
argue the recall application filed by him in
order to avoid excuse again by the
Corporation that case was argued by Sri
B.L. Verma who is not on its panel and not
by Sri Ranjeet Saxena who is on the panel
of thue Corporation.

(d) It is very easy to allege by a
subsequent counsel that information to his
client was not given. If that be the case the
recall application ought to have been filed
through Sri R.D. Khare. Consequently the
case after the judgment has been allotted to
Sri Ranjeet Saxena by the Corporation to
get recall of order and judgment dated
31.1.2006."

18. Similar issue came before this
Court in the matter of Rajesh Kumar
Tiwari vs. U.P. Shiksha Parishad and 4
Ors. (Service Single No. 7775 of 2005), in
which
after
considering
different
judgments, this Court has held that
review/recall/modification application filed
by
a
subsequent
counsel
is
not
maintainable. Relevant part of the said
judgement is quoted below:-

"4. On perusal of aforesaid
judgments,
it
is
evident
that
review/recall/modification application by a
subsequent counsel is not maintainable."

19. From the perusal of aforesaid
judgments, intention of the Courts are very
much clear that in case such review
applications are entertained, it would be
unending process with permission to
opening of new Pandora Box. Undoubtedly,
if the case is filed and argued by a counsel,
he is the only person to file review
application for the reasons that he is aware
about the facts and grounds argued before
this Court. This cannot be agitated by a
subsequent counsel who has no concern
with the matter till the final disposal of the
case.
Therefore,
such
practice
of
engagement of new counsel for filing
review/recall/modification must have been
depreciated.
Further,
granting
such
permission would be gross misuse of
process of law and an attempt to raise new
arguments for re-hearing of case on merits.

20. Now coming to the present case.
As the facts are undisputed that writ
petition was filed by Sri Pankaj Agarwal
whereas review application has been filed
by Sri Balwinder Singh Suri along with Sri
Mukesh Kumar Pandey without obtaining
'No Objection Certificate', therefore, in the
light of judgments referred herein-above,
no such review application is maintainable.

21. Therefore, review application is
dismissed on the ground of maintainability.

22.

No
order
as
to
costs.
11 All. Ratan Lal Jaiswal Vs. Smt. Sunita Devi
229
----------
(2023) 11 ILRA 229
REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 24.07.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE PRAKASH PADIA, J.

S.C.C. Revision No. 62 of 2023

Ratan Lal Jaiswal ...Revisionist
Versus
Smt. Sunita Devi ...Opposite Party

Counsel for the Revisionist:
Sri Suresh Srivastava, Sri Abhishek, Jyoti

Counsel for the Opposite Party:
Sri Ashvanee Kumar Srivastava, Sri Vineet
Kumar Singh, Sri Vishal Pandey

Civil Law - Small Causes Court Act, 1887section
25-Applicability
of
ActDefendant/revisionist has filed an application
under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC- on the ground that
the suit filed by the plaintiff-opposite party is
not maintainable in the Court of Judge Small
Causes Court- plaint averment that the tenancy
was for fixed -after expiry of fixed term - a
notice, demanding arrear of rent, damages for
use and occupation and vacant possession of
the shop was made by the plaintiff- the
provisions of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 are not
applicable, the suit for recovery of arrears of
rent is maintainable only in SCC Court- section
16 of the Small Causes Court Act- no other
Court will have jurisdiction to try the suit- the
SCC suit is maintainable. (E-9)

Cases cited:

1. Amit Gupta Vs Gulab Chand Kanodia, 2023
(6) ADJ 191

(Delivered by Hon'ble Prakash Padia, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the
defendant-revisionist
and
Mr.
Vineet
Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the
plaintiff-opposite party.

2. The present SCC Revision has been
filed by the revisionist, under section 25 of
the Small Causes Court Act, 1887,
challenging the judgment and order dated
21.11.2022
passed
by
the
learned
Additional District & Session Judge,
F.T.C.-2 (under Section 14 of the Finance
Commissioner), Gorakhpur in SCC Suit
No. 2 of 2021 (Sunita Devi Vs. Ratan Lal
Jaiswal).

3. The facts as stated in the affidavit
are that the plaintiff/Sunita Devi has
instituted SCC Suit No. 2 of 2021, in the
Court of Judge Small Causes Court
Gorakhpur on 19.1.2021, the plaint of the
said suit is annexed as annexure-1 to the
affidavit. As per the plaint averment, a
registered rent agreement dated 11.6.2015
was executed between the plaintiff/Sunita
Devi and Ratan Lal/defendant for letting
out the shop, measuring 10x14 i.e. 140
square feet. The boundaries of the shop
have been mentioned in the plaint. As per
the registered rent agreement, the monthly
rent of the shop was Rs. 6000/-. The term
of the rent agreement was from 1.7.2015 to
30.6.2020.

4. It is further stated in the plaint that
the tenant/revisionist was in arrears of rent
from 1.1.2020 to 30.6.2020. After expiry of
term
of
the
rent
agreement,
the
defendant/revisionist has not vacated the
shop in dispute, accordingly, a notice dated
17.9.2020 was given, terminating the
tenancy and demanding arrears of rent. The
suit was instituted by the plaintiff- opposite
party for recovery of arrears of rent,
damages for use and occupation as well as
possession of the shop.