# Shyam Sunder Verma v. Jagat & Ors

- **Citation:** (2021) 3 ILRA 482
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2021-02-10
- **Case number:** Matter Under Article 227 No. 1008 of 2021
- **Bench:** Prakash Padia
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/shyam-sunder-verma-v-jagat-ors-46904
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

A. Constitution of India, 1950-Article 227
& U.P. Municipalities Act,1916-Section 19desposition
of
election
petition-after
interim orders passed on 31.07.2020,
various dates were fixed in the matter but
at no point of time, any prayer has been
made for extension of the interim order-in
absence of a speaking stay order after a
lapse of six months from the date of
judgment or from the date of the stay
order whichever is later would not bind
the trial court-the aggrieved litigating
party is bound to obtain a fresh speaking
stay order in terms of the Supreme Court
judgment and not wait until the trial
resumes after six months-non-speaking
order extending the stay, though being an
order of Superior Court, would not bind
the trial court in view of the law declared
in Asian Resurfacing-all interim orders
staying
the
trial
would
stand
automatically vacated after lapse of six
months unless extended by a speaking
order in exceptional case-order passed is
only
interlocutory
in
nature-the
proceedings before the Election Tribunal is
continuing-the order passed by Election
Tribunal requires no interference.(Para 1
to 15)

The Petition is dismissed. (E-5)

List of Cases cited: -

## Text

482 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
does not exceed five thousand rupees shall be
cognizable by a Court of Small Causes:

Provided that in relation to suits by the
lessor for the eviction of a lessee from a
building after the determination of his lease or
for recovery from him of rent in respect of the
period of occupation thereof during the
continuance of the lease, or of compensation for
use
and
occupation
thereof
after
the
determination of the lease, the reference in this
sub-section to five thousand rupees shall be
construed as a reference of twenty-five
thousand rupees.

Explanation.--For the purposes of this subsection, the expression ''building' has the same
meaning as in Art. (4) in the Second Schedule.

16. Exclusive jurisdiction of Courts of Small
Causes.-- Save as expressly provided by this Act
or by any other enactment for the time being in
force, a suit cognizable by a Court of Small
Causes shall not be tried by any other Court
having jurisdiction within the local limits of the
jurisdiction of the Court of Small Causes by which
the suit is triable."

11. In the present, case the previously
instituted suit is Original Suit No.197 of 2008. The
relief claimed in this suit is for permanent
injunction and for restraining the defendanttenant from obstructing the light and air facilities
of the plaintiffs. The subsequent suit is SCC Suit
No.169 of 2008 pending before the Judge, Court
of Small Causes for eviction of the defendant as he
was in arrears of rent and had raised
constructions without the consent of the landlords.
The subsequent suit is required to be decided in a
summary manner provided under the Act and the
reliefs in the two suits is different.

15. The same is the position in the present
case. The Judge, Court of Small Causes cannot
grant the relief claimed in the Original Suit. It is
for this reason that the application filed by the
defendant for stay of the proceedings in the
subsequent suit had been rejected.

16. The matter can also be examined from
another aspect as to whether Section 10 CPC
would be applicable to proceedings before the
Judge, Court of Small Causes.

21. The aforesaid decisions clearly hold that
for Section 10 CPC to apply, both the proceedings
should be in suits between the same parties and it
will not apply to proceedings initiated under any
other Statute. In the present case SCC Suit has
been filed under the provisions of the Act. It has,
therefore, to be held that Section 10 CPC will not
apply to proceedings initiated under the Act.
 (Emphasis supplied)

10. It cannot, therefore, be disputed that both
the suits are pending in different courts seeking
different reliefs. The application was filed before
the Judge Small Causes Court, which has no
jurisdiction to decide the original suit for
injunction.

11.

For
the
discussions
made
hereinabove, I find that the case relied by the
learned counsel for the petitioner in Anandan
Gupta (supra) is of no help to him.

12. In such view of the matter, I do not
find any good ground to interfere in the
impugned orders.

13. Present petition lacks merits and is
accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.
----------

(2021)03ILR A482
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 10.02.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE PRAKASH PADIA, J.

Matter Under Article 227 No. 1008 of 2021
(Civil)

Shyam Sunder Verma ...Petitioner
Versus
Jagat & Ors. ...Respondents
3 All. Shyam Sunder Verma Vs. Jagat & Ors.
483
Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Shashi Prakash Misra, Sri H.N. Singh Sr.
Advocate

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri Kshitij Shalendra

A. Constitution of India, 1950-Article 227
& U.P. Municipalities Act,1916-Section 19desposition
of
election
petition-after
interim orders passed on 31.07.2020,
various dates were fixed in the matter but
at no point of time, any prayer has been
made for extension of the interim order-in
absence of a speaking stay order after a
lapse of six months from the date of
judgment or from the date of the stay
order whichever is later would not bind
the trial court-the aggrieved litigating
party is bound to obtain a fresh speaking
stay order in terms of the Supreme Court
judgment and not wait until the trial
resumes after six months-non-speaking
order extending the stay, though being an
order of Superior Court, would not bind
the trial court in view of the law declared
in Asian Resurfacing-all interim orders
staying
the
trial
would
stand
automatically vacated after lapse of six
months unless extended by a speaking
order in exceptional case-order passed is
only
interlocutory
in
nature-the
proceedings before the Election Tribunal is
continuing-the order passed by Election
Tribunal requires no interference.(Para 1
to 15)

The Petition is dismissed. (E-5)

List of Cases cited: -

1. Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency Pvt. Ltd. &
anr. Vs C.B.I. (2018) AIR SC 2039

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

1. An amendment application supported
by an affidavit has been filed today in the
Court by the counsel for the petitioner and the
same is taken on record.

2. By way of the aforesaid learned
counsel
for
the
petitioner
prays
for
amendment in the body of the petition by
adding Paragraph Nos.13-A, 13-B & 13-C
after paragraph 13 and 20-A after paragraph
No.20 and grounds Nos V(A) and V(B) after
ground No.V and prayer clause of the
petition by adding prayer No.(i)(a) and (1)(b)
after prayer No.(i).

3. Learned counsel for respondent has
no objection if the amendment application is
allowed as the amendments are formal in
nature.

In view of the above, Amendment
Application is allowed.

4. Counsel for the petitioner is directed
to carry out necessary amendments in the
body of the petition and prayer clause of the
petition during the course of the day.

Order on the Petition

1. Heard Sri H.N. Singh, learned Senior
Counsel assisted by Sri Shashi Prakash
Misra, learned counsel for the petitioner and
Sri Kshitij Shailendra, learned counsel for the
respondent.

2. The petitioner has preferred the
present petition under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India with the following
prayers:-

"(i) Issue a suitable order or direction
setting aside the impugned judgement and
order dated 02.02.2021 passed by the
Additional
District
&
Sessions
Judge(POCSO Act-1) Sant Kabir Nagar in
Misc. Case No.37 of 2020 arising out of
Election Petition No.01 of 2017 (Jagat Vs.
Shyam Sundar and others).
484 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

(i)(a) Issue a suitable order or
direction setting aside the impugned order
dated 05.02.2021 passed by the District
Election Officer/District Magistrate, Sant
Kabir Nagar and all further proceedings
consequent thereupon including the result
of recounting.

(i)(b) Issue a suitable order or
direction directing the respondents not to
give effect to the impugned order dated
05.02.2021 referred to above and stay all
further proceedings consequent thereupon
including the effect of recounting during
the pendency of the petition before this
Hon'ble Court.

(ii) Issue a suitable order or direction
directing the respondents not to give effect
to the impugned judgement and order
referred to above and stay all further
proceedings consequent threreupon during
the pendency of the petition before this
Hon'ble Court.

(iii) Issue any other order or direction
which this Hon'ble Court may deem fitand
proper in the facts and circumstances of the
case.

(iv) Award the costs of the petition."

3. Facts in brief as contained in the
petition are that the present petitioner
contested the election for the post of
President
of
the
Nagar
Panchayat,
Khalilabad, District Sant Kabir Nagar
which was held on 26.11.2017. The
petitioner was elected as President to the
aforesaid Nagar Panchayat. The rival of the
petitioner namely Jagat son of Sri Dhoop
Chandra/respondent No.1 has preferred an
Election Petition being Election Petition
No.01 of 2017 (Jagat Vs. Shyam Sundar
and
others).
The
Election
Tribunal/Additional
Sessions
Judge
(POSCO Act-1) Sant Kabir Nagar has
finally allowed the aforesaid Election
Petition vide its judgement and order dated
07.03.2020.
By
the
aforesaid
order,
directions were given to the Returning
Officer to re-count the votes and declare
the result. Further directions were given
that the results of the election which was
already declared, will be subject to final
result declared by the returning officer after
recounting of votes and the Election
Tribunal further directed the Prescribed
Authority/Election
Officer/District
Magistrate Sant Kabir Nagar to implement
the aforesaid order within ten days. It is
further directed that till the aforesaid result
is declared, petition will continue to hold
the post of President, Nagar Panchayat.

4. Aggrieved against the aforesaid
order, a petition under Article 227 No.2270
of 2020 was filed by the petitioner before
this Court. This Court after hearing
arguments of learned counsel for the
petitioner an respondent No.1 in that
petition stayed the effect and operation of
the order dated 07.03.2020 passed by the
Election Tribunal till further orders of this
Court. After passing the aforesaid order of
this Court, various dates were fixed in the
matter by the Election Tribunal in the
aforesaid petition and ultimately, on
02.02.2021, an order was passed by the
Election Tribunal which is under challenge
in this petition.

5. It is argued by Sri H.N. Singh,
learned Senior Counsel that the order
passed by the Election Tribunal is arbitrary,
unjust and illegal and is liable to be set
aside. It is argued that once the order
passed by the Election Tribunal dated
07.03.2020 was stayed by this Court, there
is no rhyme and reason to the Election
Tribunal, to pass any fresh order. It is
further argued that findings recorded by the
Election Tribunal that the interim order
dated 31.07.2020 passed by this Court in
the Petition No.2270 of 2020 came to an
3 All. Shyam Sunder Verma Vs. Jagat & Ors.
485
end after expiry of the period of six months
is absolutely illegal. It is further argued that
paragraph 35 of the judgment of the
Supreme Court in the case of Asian
Resurfacing of Road Agency Pvt. Ltd. &
Anr. Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation
reported in AIR 2018 SC 2039 will not
apply in the facts and circumstances of the
case. It is argued that the paragraph 35 of
the Asian Resurfacing of Road (supra)
which was relied upon by the Election
Tribunal will apply only in those cases
where proceedings are pending but insofar
as
the
present
case
is
concerned,
proceedings of the Election Petition has
already
been
came
to
an
end
on
07.03.2020. Hence there is no occasion for
the Election Tribunal to pass the order
impugned. It is further argued that in view
of the fact that an interim order was granted
in favour of the petitioner in the Petition
No.220 of 2020, the order impugned dated
02.02.2021 is liable to be set aside.

6. On the other hand, it is argued by
Sri Kshitish Shalendra lerned counsel
appearing for the contesting respondent that
the order passed by the Election Tribunal is
absolutely perfect and valid and does not
call for any intereference by this Court. A
preliminary objection has also been raised
by him that the present petition filed by the
petitioner in not at all maintainable and
only appropriate remedy available to the
petitioner is to file a stay extension
application in his earlier petition. It is
argued that the earlier petition filed by the
petitioner was listed on various occasions
but neither any stay extension application
was moved nor any prayer has been made
by the counsel for the petitioner in that
petition for extension of the interim order.
It is further argued that after the judgment
was delivered by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the case of Asian Resurfacing of
Road (supra), certain more directions were
given by a three Judges Bench of Hon'ble
Apex Court on October 145 2020 in Misc.
Application No.1577 of 2020 filed in Asian
Resurfacing of Road (supra).

7. It is further argued that the Election
Petition is still pending consideration and
no final decision has been taken on the
same more specially in view of the fact that
after the order dated 7.3.2020 was passed
by the Election Tribunal, various dates
were fixed in the matter from time to time
but at no point of time, any objection was
raised by the counsel appearing on behalf
of the petitioner that the proceedings could
not be continued due to the fact that the
Election Tribunal has become functus
offico after the judgment and order dated
07.03.2020 has been passed.

8. Heard learned counsel for the
parties and perused the record.

9. From perusal of the order dated
07.03.2020 passed by the Election Tribunal
by which the directions were issued to the
Returning Officer to recount the votes and
declare the result accordingly. Aggrieved
with the aforesaid order, a petition under
Article 227 No.2270 of 2020 was filed by
the present petitioner. In the said petition,
an interim order was granted by a Coordinate Bench of this Court on 31.07.202
which is quoted below:-

"Heard
Sri
H.N.
Singh,
Senior
Advocate assisted by Sri Shashi Prakash
Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner.

The petitioner is aggrieved by an
order dated 07.03.2020 passed by the
learned Additional District Judge/District
& Sessions Judge (POCSO) Act-1, Sant
Kabir Nagar in Election Petition No. 1 of
2017, whereby he has ordered that the
Election Petition stands decided in terms
that the Chief Election Officer (Local
Body/Prescribed Authority), Sant Kabir
Nagar shall undertake under his personal
486 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
supervision, a recount of votes and declare
the result thereof. According to the
directions carried in the order, some eight
directions in the matter of recount have
been issued, that read as follows:

"1. मतगणना िररणाम में नगर िावलका
िररर्द्
खलीलाबाद
के
चुनाि
वदनांवकत
26.11.2017 में नगर वनकाय खलीलाबाद में
वकतने मतादाता थे,उनका स्पष्ट् उिेख वकया
जायेगा, एिं

2. मतगणना िररणाम में यर् भी उिेख
वकया जायेगा की नगर वनकाय चुनाि में वकतने
मतदातागण ने अिने मत का प्रयोग वकया तथा
वकतने मतदातागण ने मताविकार का प्रयोग
नर्ीं
वकया
तथा
वकतने
मतदातागण
ने
मताविकार का प्रयोग नर्ीं वकया, एिं

3. मतगणना िररणाम में यर् भी उिेख
वकया जायेगा की चुनाि में प्रत्येक बूथ िर वकतने
मतो को उियोग में नर्ीं लाया गया र्ै, एिं

4. िीठासीन अविकारी द्वारा मतगणना के
समय प्रयोग में लाये गये अवभलेखों से प्रयुक्त एिं
अप्रयुक्त मतों का वमलान वकया जायेगा, एिं

5. प्रत्येक अिैि मत का िृथक-िृथक िणहन
वकया जायगा वक अमुख क्रम संख्या का अिैि
मत वकस आिार िर अिैि घोवर्त वकया गया र्ै,
एिं

6. यर् प्रयास वकया जायेगा वक विवर्त
प्राविकारी एक विस्तृत आदेश िाररत करे,
वजससे स्पष्ट् िररलवक्षत र्ो एिं िक्षकार यर् जान
सके वक कौन सा मत वकस आिार िर अिैि
घोवर्त वकया गया र्ै, एिं

7. समस्त कायहिार्ी सी0सी0टी0िी0 कैमरे
की वनगरानी में संिन्न की जािेगी मतगणना की
समस्त कायहिार्ी की विवर्योग्राफी भी की
जाएगी एिं अिैि मतों की विशेर् रुि से
िीवर्योग्राफी की जाएगी तावक उनके अिैि
घोवर्त र्ोने का कारण जाना जा सके,
िीवर्योग्राफी में संकवलत िीवर्यो की एक प्रवत
सील बंद र्ोकर ित्रािली में दान्स्क्खल की जाएगी,
एिं

8. उिरोक्त घोवर्त िररणाम िूिह के
मतगणना िररणामों िर प्रभािी र्ोगा तद्नुसार
नगर िावलका िररर्द्, खलीलाबाद के अध्यक्ष
िद के वनिाहचन का िररणाम िुनः घोवर्त वकया
जायेगा। तब तक ितहमान व्यिस्था जारी रर्ेगी।"

"The submission of Sri H.N. Singh,
learned
Senior
Counsel
is
that
the
disposition of the Election Petition by the
Additional District Judge sitting as the
Election Tribunal under Section 19 of the
U.P. Municipalities Act, 1916 is manifestly
illegal. The orders that can be passed by the
Additional District Judge, sitting as the
Election Tribunal, are specified by the Act
of 1916, under Section 25 of the Act, as
also Section 26. It is submitted by learned
Senior Advocate that a reading of Section
25 of the Act shows that the District Judge
may, after hearing parties and holding
inquiry, dismiss the petition and under Subsection (2) of Section 25 declare a casual
vacancy to have been created or grant
recriminatory relief under Sub clause (b) of
sub Section (2) of Section 25 of the Act,
declaring another person elected. However,
an order of the kind impunged, in the
submission of learned Senior Advocate,
cannot be passed where no order has been
passed by the learned District Judge in
terms of Section 25 of the Act but he has
delegated all his powers of determination to
the Chief Election Officer, requiring him to
do a recount and declare the result of the
elections afresh. It is also submitted that
one of the directions made by the District
Judge that recount is to be done under the
eye of a C.C.T.V. Camera, violates the
principle of secrecy of ballet, and that on
that count also, the impunged order is
manifestly illegal.
3 All. Shyam Sunder Verma Vs. Jagat & Ors.
487

Sri Markanday Rai, learned counsel
appearing on behalf of respondent no. 1
submits that the impugned order is not a
final order. Even though he accepts that the
the learned Additional District Judge says
that the Election Petition stands decided, he
says that when a final order is passed a writ
petition would lie to this Court. But, for the
present, only a Review petition can be
moved by the petitioner. A prima facie case
is made out.

Admit.

Issue notice.

Sri Markanday Rai, Advocate accepts
notice on behalf of respondent no. 1. He is
granted three weeks' time to file a counter
affidavit.

Steps be taken to serve the other
respondents within a week by RPAD.

List for orders on 24.08.2020 in the
additional cause list alaong with a report
regarding service and status of pleadings.

Civil Misc. Stay Application No. 1 of
2020

Issue notice.

Sri Markanday Rai, Advocate accepts
notice on behalf of respondent no. 1.

Until further orders, operation of the
impugned order dated 07.03.2020 passed
by the Election Tribunal/ Additional
District & Sessions Judge (POCSO Act)-1,
Sant Kabir Nagar in Election Petition No.
01 of 2017 Jagat vs. Shyam Sunder Verma
and others shall remain suspended."

10. Vide order dated 10.02.2021,
entire records of the aforesaid petition was
called for by this Court for perusal. From
perusal of the same, it is clear that after
interim order dated 31.07.2020, various
dates were fixed in the matter but at no
point of time, any prayer has been made for
extension of the interim order. It further
reveals that the lastly, the aforesaid petition
was listed on 11.1.2020. On the said date,
matter was fixed in the week commencing
from 22.03.2021 but even on the said date,
no prayer was made by the counsel for the
petitioner for extension of the interim order
dated 31.07.2020. It further reveals from
perusal of the record that no application
whatsoever has been filed by the petitioner
in that petition for extension of interim
order specially in view of the law laid
down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
case of Asian Resurfacing of Road (supra).
Paragraph 35 of the aforesaid judgement
which was relied upon by the Court below
is reproduced below:-

35. In view of above, situation of
proceedings remaining pending for long on
account of stay needs to be remedied.
Remedy is required not only for corruption
cases but for all civil and criminal cases
where on account of stay, civil and
criminal proceedings are held up. At times,
proceedings are adjourned sine die on
account of stay. Even after stay is vacated,
intimation is not received and proceedings
are not taken up. In an attempt to remedy
this, situation, we consider it appropriate
to direct that in all pending cases where
stay against proceedings of a civil or
criminal trial is operating, the same will
come to an end on expiry of six months
from today unless in an exceptional case by
a speaking order such stay is extended. In
cases where stay is granted in future, the
same will end on expiry of six months from
the date of such order unless similar
extension is granted by a speaking order.
The speaking order must show that the case
was of such exceptional nature that
continuing the stay was more important
than having the trial finalized. The trial
Court where order of stay of civil or
criminal proceedings is produced, may fix
a date not beyond six months of the order
of stay so that on expiry of period of stay,
488 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
proceedings can commence unless order of
extension of stay is produced.

11. He further relied upon the order
dated October 15, 2020 The three Judges
Bench of Hon'ble Apex Court made
following
observations
in
Misc.
Application No. 1577 of 2020:-

"We must remind the Magistrates all
over the country that in our pyramidical
structure under the Constitution of India,
the Supreme Court is at the Apex, and the
High Courts, though not subordinate
administratively, are certainly subordinate
judicially. This kind of orders fly in the face
of para 35 of our judgment. We expect that
the Magistrates all over the country will
follow our order in letter and spirit.
Whatever stay has been granted by any
court
including
the
High
Court
automatically expires within a period of six
months, and unless extension is granted for
good reason, as per our judgment, within
the next six months, the trial Court is, on
the expiry of the first period of six months,
to set a date for the trial and go ahead with
the same.

12. He further relied upon an order
dated 14.01.2020 passed in Contempt
Application (Civil) No.204 of 2020 (Syed
Raees Ahmad Vs. Om Prakash, Special
Judge, S.C./S.T. Act. In the aforesaid
judgement following principles were laid
down in view of the judgement of Hon'ble
Apex Court
in
the
case
of
Asian
Resurfacing of Road (supra) :-

(i) The trial court and the Superior
Court is bound by the law declared by the
Supreme Court in Asian Resurfacing;

(ii) It is incumbent upon the party in
whose favour the stay order is operating to
approach the Superior Court/High Court,
as the case may be, and obtain a speaking
order in terms of Asian Resurfacing;

(iii) In absence of a speaking stay
order after a lapse of six months from the
date of judgment rendered in Asian
Resurfacing or from the date of the stay
order whichever is later would not bind the
trial court;

(iv) Asian Resurfacing is judgment in
rem; the aggrieved litigating party is bound
to obtain a fresh speaking stay order in
terms of the Supreme Court judgment and
not wait until the trial resumes after six
months;

(v) Non speaking order extending the
stay, though being an order of the Superior
Court/High Court, would not bind the trial
court in view of the law declared in Asian
Resurfacing;

(vi) All interim orders staying the trial
would stand automatically vacated after
lapse of six months unless extended by a
speaking order in exceptional case;

(vii) Where the trial court has
proceeded with the trial following Asian
Resurfacing/High Court Circular, that
would not preclude the aggrieved party to
the trial to obtain a fresh speaking stay
order from the Superior Court/High Court.

13. It further reveals from perusal of
the record that after the interim order was
granted by this Court on 31.07.2020,
various dates were fixed in the Election
Petition by the Election Tribunal but at no
point of time any objection was raised by
the counsel for the petitioner that the
proceedings should not be permitted to go
ahead in view of the order dated
31.07.2020 by which the proceedings were
stayed. From perusal of the record, this
Court is of the opinion that the proceedings
before the Tribunal is continuing even
today and the order dated 07.03.2020 is
only inter-locatory in nature.
3 All. Hafeez & Ors. Vs. Digvijay Singh & Ors.
489

14. In this view of the matter, I am of
the opinion that the order passed by this
Election Tribunal dated 02.02.2020 is
absolutely perfect and does not call for any
interference by this Court.

15. The petition has no merit and
liable to be dismissed and the same is
hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.
----------
(2021)03ILR A489
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 19.02.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE VIVEK KUMAR BIRLA, J.

Matter Under Article 227 No. 1646 of 2020

Hafeez & Ors. ...Petitioners
Versus
Digvijay Singh & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Smt. Rama Goel Bansal

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Rishikesh Tripathi

A. Constitution of India,1950,-Article 227
& Provincial Small Cause Court Act, 1887Section 15(1) -maintainability of suit-suit
was contested by the tenant mainly on the
ground that the house was very old and in
the last rains substantial part of the house
had fallen down and was not left in
liveable
condition-therefore,
tenant
sought permission from the landlord to
raise construction-such permission could
not be proved by the tenant-no notice was
given to the landlord u/s 29(2) of the Act
13
of
1972-perusal
of
definition
of
building given in Section 3(i) of the Act
and Article 4 of 2nd Schedule of Section 15
of the PSCC Act 1887 (UP Amendment)
clearly shows that the building means
roofed
structure
and
includes
land
including any garden, garage, outhouse
and land appurtenant to such building-In
the present case, building includes fo land
beneath i.e. over which the construction/
structure was existing was under tenancyIt is not even the case of petitioner that
the plaintiff is not the owner of the land
and the building existing thereon of which
he was the tenant-the suit is maintainable
and
court
below
committed
no
jurisdictional
error-the
tenant
shall
handover the peaceful possession of the
premises in question to the landlord and
shall pay entire decretal amount within a
period of two months.(Para 1 to 19)

The Petition is dismissed. (E-5)

List of Cases cited: -

1. Munnu Yadav Vs Ram Kumar Yadav &
anr.,(2020) 1 ALJ 316

2. Hindustan Petroleum Corp. Ltd. Vs Dilbahar
Singh (2014) 9 SCC 78

(Delivered by Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Birla, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the
petitioners and learned counsel appearing
for the respondents.

2. Present petition has been filed for
setting aside the judgment and decree dated
22.1.2020 passed by the Additional District
Judge, Court No. 3, Jhansi in SCC Revision
No. 17 of 2019 as well as judgment and
decree dated 8.4.2019 passed by the Judge
Small Causes Court, Jhansi in SCC Suit
No. 10 of 2009.

3. Shorn of details, the facts of the
case in brief are that the suit was filed by
the plaintiff on the ground that they are the
owner of House No. 646, Mohalla
Thakuryana,
Puliya
No.
9,
Jhansi.
Reference was made to earlier litigation in
regard to the same property. It is alleged
that the house was very old, which