# Rameshwar and another v. The VIIth Upper District and Sessions Judge, Deoria & others

- **Citation:** (2002) 1 ILRA 219
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2002-01-23
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 2770 of 1985
- **Bench:** Anjani Kumar
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/rameshwar-and-another-v-the-viith-upper-district-and-sessions-judge-deoria-39799
- **Pages:** 2

## Headnote

Letting Rent and Eviction) Act 1972-
Section 22 power of the Appellate Court-
finding
of
fact
recorded
by
the
Prescribed
Authority-
can
not
be
interfered by the appellate authority-
unless
there
is
some
material
irregularity.
Held- Para 14
It is now well settled that the Appellate
Court while reversing the judgment of
lower court must deal with the reasoning
given by the court below. Whether land
lord had bona fide and real intention to
leave Delhi and to settle at Bulandshahr
in the context of the circumstances that
his wife was treated at Delhi, was a
relevant consideration and on which the
Prescribed Authority has placed reliance.
Hence it was incumbent upon the
Prescribed Authority to deal with the
said aspect of the matter and to record a
finding after considering the relevant
material with reference to the same in
absence of it, the finding recorded by the
Appellate Court is vitiated which cannot
be sustained.
Case law discussed:
1996 (2) All.R.C. 479

## Text

1All] Rameshwar & another V. The VIIth Upper District & Sessions Judge,Deoria & others
219
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 23.01.2002

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE ANJANI KUMAR, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 2770 of 1985

Rameshwar and another ...Petitioners
Versus
The VIIth Upper District and Sessions
Judge, Deoria & others ..Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri Jokhan Prasad

Counsel for the Respondents:
S.C.

Constitution
of
India,
Article
226/227-
jurisdiction-
suit
for
cancellation
of
sale
deed
and
injunction-
whether
the
suit
is
triable by the civil court or by
Revenue Court- held- only the civil
court has jurisdiction.

Held- Para 4

Heard
learned
counsel
for
the
parties. Sri Jokhan Prasad learned
counsel
for
the
petitioners
has
argued that in view of the law, which
will depend on the allegations in
plaint and also the relief clause and
in view of the recent Supreme Court
decision reported in J.T. 2001 (Vol.2)
SC, 573- Sri Ram and another Versus
Ist Additional District Judge and
others, wherein the Supreme Court
has affirmed the decision of Full
Bench decision reported in 1989
RD21- Ram Padarath and others
Versus
IInd
Additional
District
Judge, Sultanpur and others, the law
laid down by Supreme Court and
after going through the relief clause,
the view taken by the revisional
Court is not correct and suffers from
the manifest error.

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

1. Petitioners-plaintiffs filed suit no.
392 of 1982 before the Court Munsif,
Deoria with the following reliefs:-

"1- ;g fd olnwj fMxzh cSukek 22&12&81 ogd
oknhx.k cuke izfroknh x.k ealw[kk djus dh
fMxzh iznku fd;k tkos A
2- ;g fd olnwj fMxzh bErukbZ nokeh izfroknh
la0 ,d dks loZFkk ds fy, euk fd;k tkos
fd gLo rQlhy tSlk fookfnr vkjkfy;kr esa
fdlh izdkj dh eqtkfger u djsa vkSj u dCtk
n[ky ge oknhx.k esa vojks/k mRiUu djsa A
3- ;g fd ge oknhx.k dh izfroknh ua0 ,d ls
[kpkZ eqdnek o odhy esgurkuk fnykus dh
fMxzh iznku fd;k tkos A
4- ;g fd vykok ;k ctk; nknjlh etdwjkokyk
ds oknhx.k ftl fdlh vU; nknjlh ds
eqLrgy djkj ik;s tkos mldh Hkh fMxzh ogd
oknhx.k cuke izfroknh x.k lkfnj dj x;k
tkosA"

2. An objection was filed by the
defendants before the trial Court that the
suit is not cognisable before the civil
Court, therefore the same should be
rejected and the petitioners-plaintiffs be
relegated to the revenue Court. The trial
Court decided the said suit in favour of
the plaintiffs that the suit is cognizable by
the civil Court.

3. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid
order, the defendants preferred a revision
before the revisional Court and the
revisional Court arrived at and recorded
findings that the suit is not cognisable by
the civil Court, therefore the suit may be
dismissed and the petitioners-plaintiffs
INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2002
220
may be directed to go to the revenue
Court.

4. Heard learned counsel for the
parties.
Sri
Jokhan
Prasad,
learned
counsel for the petitioners has argued that
in view of the law, which will depend on
the allegations in plaint and also the relief
clause and in view of the recent Supreme
Court decision reported in J.T. 2001
(Vol.2) S.C., 573 - Shri Ram and
another Versus Ist Additional District
Judge and others, wherein the Supreme
Court has affirmed the decision of Full
Bench decision reported in 1989 R.D.,
21- Ram Pradarath and others Versus
IInd
Additional
District
Judge,
Sultanpur and others, the law laid down
by Supreme Court and after going through
the relief clause, the view taken by the
revisional court is not correct and suffers
from the manifest error of law.

5. In view of what has been stated
above, it is abundantly clear that the suit
is cognisable by the civil Court and in this
view of the matter, the order dated
5.11.1984,
Annexure-3
to
the
writ
petition, passed by the revisional Court is
liable to be set aside and is hereby
quashed.

With the aforesaid observation, the
writ petition is allowed. There will,
however, be no order as to costs.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 07.02.2002

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE A.K. YOG, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 5594 of 2002

Rajpal Singh alias Rajveer Singh

 ...Petitioner
Versus
Abdul Haq Khan and another

 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Pradeep Kumar

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Atiq Ahmad Khan

U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of
Letting Rent and Eviction) Act 1972-
Section 22 power of the Appellate Court-
finding
of
fact
recorded
by
the
Prescribed
Authority-
can
not
be
interfered by the appellate authority-
unless
there
is
some
material
irregularity.
Held- Para 14
It is now well settled that the Appellate
Court while reversing the judgment of
lower court must deal with the reasoning
given by the court below. Whether land
lord had bona fide and real intention to
leave Delhi and to settle at Bulandshahr
in the context of the circumstances that
his wife was treated at Delhi, was a
relevant consideration and on which the
Prescribed Authority has placed reliance.
Hence it was incumbent upon the
Prescribed Authority to deal with the
said aspect of the matter and to record a
finding after considering the relevant
material with reference to the same in
absence of it, the finding recorded by the
Appellate Court is vitiated which cannot
be sustained.
Case law discussed:
1996 (2) All.R.C. 479