# Lok Pal Singh and others v. IInd Additional District Judge, Bijnor and others

- **Citation:** (2005) 2 ILRA 473
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2005-05-20
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.12402 of 2003
- **Bench:** Anjani Kumar
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/lok-pal-singh-and-others-v-iind-additional-district-judge-bijnor-and-others-40475
- **Pages:** 2

## Headnote

Small Causes of Courts Act-Section -25Power of Revisional Court-Question of
jurisdiction decided by the J.S.C.C.-
revisional court reversed the findings of
Trial Court-instead of direction to further
remand,
revisional
court
illegally
dismissed the suit itself-held-not properOrder passed by the revisional court
Quashed-matter remitted back to decide
as fresh.

Held: Para 4

This writ petition is, therefore, allowed
and the order of the revisional court
dated 29.11.2002 is quashed but in the
interest of justice instead of remanding
back to the revisional court with the
direction to further remand back the
matter to the trial court, order of the
trial court also for the reasons given by
the revisional court is quashed. The
matter will now go back to the trial court
to be decided afresh in accordance with
law after affording opportunity to the
parties.
Case law discussed:
1981 ARC 545 (D.B.) relied on

## Text

2 All] Shiv Sagar Dwivedi V. State of U.P. and others

 473
circumstances of the case, no order as to
costs.
Petition Allowed.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 20.5.2005

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE ANJANI KUMAR, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.12402 of 2003

Lok Pal Singh and others
...Petitioner
Versus
IInd Additional District Judge, Bijnor and
others

...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri J.P.S. Chauhan

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri R.K. Shukla

Small Causes of Courts Act-Section -25Power of Revisional Court-Question of
jurisdiction decided by the J.S.C.C.-
revisional court reversed the findings of
Trial Court-instead of direction to further
remand,
revisional
court
illegally
dismissed the suit itself-held-not properOrder passed by the revisional court
Quashed-matter remitted back to decide
as fresh.

Held: Para 4

This writ petition is, therefore, allowed
and the order of the revisional court
dated 29.11.2002 is quashed but in the
interest of justice instead of remanding
back to the revisional court with the
direction to further remand back the
matter to the trial court, order of the
trial court also for the reasons given by
the revisional court is quashed. The
matter will now go back to the trial court
to be decided afresh in accordance with
law after affording opportunity to the
parties.
Case law discussed:
1981 ARC 545 (D.B.) relied on

(Delivered by Hon'ble Anjani Kumar, J.)

1. This writ petition has been filed
by the plaintiff-landlord who filed a suit
before the Judge of Small Cause Court on
the ground that the defendant is the tenant
of the accommodation in dispute and
according to the plaint allegation the
construction
of
the
building
was
completed in the year, 1985. The same
was let out to the defendant-tenant in the
year, 1986 and since the defendant has
committed default in payment of agreed
rent, therefore, the plaintiff-landlord filed
a suit being Suit No. 62 of 1997 for the
ejectment of the defendant-tenant and
arrears of rent and damages after
terminating the tenancy by the notice
under Section 106 of the Transfer of
Property Act. The defendant-tenant has
contested the aforesaid suit and filed
written statement denying the plaint
allegation firstly that the land over which
the building is constructed, is agricultural
land
to
which
the
provisions
of
U.P.Z.A.L.R. Act are applicable and since
the land occupied by the plaintiff, over
which the building in dispute stands, still
retains its character of agricultural land
therefore, the court of small causes do not
have jurisdiction to entertain the suit. On
the question of applicability of the
provisions of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972, the
defendant pleaded that the building in
question is constructed in the year, 1981,
therefore, the provisions of U.P. Act No.
13 of 1972 are applicable and further on
the first date of hearing the defendant has
complied with the provisions of Section
20 (4) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972, the
defendant is entitled to the benefit of
provisions of Section 20 (4) and no decree
for ejectment on the ground of arrears of
474 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2005
rent can be passed and suit therefore, is
liable to be dismissed. On the question of
default, the trial court found that since the
provisions of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 are
not applicable, therefore the termination
of tenancy by a simple notice is sufficient.
On the question of default also, the trial
court recorded finding in favour of the
landlord and decreed the suit. On the
question of jurisdiction of the small cause
court, the trial court decided the issue in
favour of the landlord. The tenantdefendant aggrieved by the decree of the
trial court, preferred a revision before the
revisional court. On the question of
applicability of the provisions of U.P. Act
No. 13 of 1972, the revisional court
reversed the finding recorded by the trial
court and held that the landlord has failed
to demonstrate that the building in
question was constructed in the year,
1985, therefore, the provisions of U.P.
Act No. 13 of 1972 are applicable to the
building in question. The revisional court
found that the provisions of U.P. Act No.
13 of 1972 are applicable and the
defendant had already complied with the
provisions of Section 20 (4) of U.P. Act
No. 13 of 1972, the view taken by the trial
court deserves to the repelled. The
revisional court therefore, allowed the
revision and set aside the order of the trial
court and dismissed the suit No. 162 of
1997 filed by plaintiff landlord.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner
has submitted that in view of the Division
Bench decision of this court reported in
1981 ARC page 545; Laxmi Kishore
and another Versus Har Prasad Shukla
even if the revisional court reversed the
finding of the trial court, it ought to have
remanded back the matter to the trial
court and should not have dismissed the
suit,as has been done by the revisional
court. Learned counsel for the petitioner
therefore, submitted that this writ petition
deserves to be allowed on thus question
and the order of the revisional court
deserves to be quashed.

3.

Learned
counsel
for
the
respondent tries to justify the order of the
revisional court but in view of the
Division
Bench
decision
of
Laxmi
Kishore (supra) I find force in the
submission made by counsel for the
petitioner.

4. This writ petition is, therefore,
allowed and the order of the revisional
court dated 29.11.2002 is quashed but in
the
interest
of
justice
instead
of
remanding back to the revisional court
with the direction to further remand back
the matter to the trial court, order of the
trial court also for the reasons given by
the revisional court is quashed. The
matter will now go back to the trial court
to be decided afresh in accordance with
law after affording opportunity to the
parties. Since the suit is of the year, 1997,
I direct the trial court to decide the suit
within three months from the date of
presentation of certified copy of this
order.
Petition Allowed.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 21.6.2005

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE ANJANI KUMAR, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 9825 of 2005

Sri Manohar Lal

...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. and others ...Respondents