Court No. - 5
Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 5589 of 2019 Petitioner :- Abdul Gaffar Respondent :- Mohammad Wasiq Counsel for Petitioner :- Ayush Khanna,Atul Dayal(Senior Adv.) Counsel for Respondent :- Arun Kumar Shukla
Hon'ble Surya Prakash Kesarwani,J.
Heard Sri Atul Dayal, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Ayush Khanna, learned counsel for the tenant-petitioner and Sri Arun Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for the plaintiff-respondent.
Briefly stated facts of the present case are that House No.171/1, Meerput Cantt., Kanpur Nagar, was owned by one Sri Barkat. The petitioner was a tenant in that house at a monthly rent of Rs.10/-. The original owner Barkat had sold the aforesaid house to the plaintiff-respondent Mohd. Wasiq. The tenant-petitioner and the plaintiff- respondent/landlord are the real brothers. Since, the tenant-petitioner had defaulted in payment of rent, therefore, the plaintiff-landlord/respondent filed S.C.C. Suit No.246 of 1994 (Mohd. Wasiq v Abdul Gaffar) for eviction of the tenant-petitioner. The aforesaid S.C.C. suit was decreed by judgment dated 17.10.2012 passed by the Additional Judge Small Cause Court (Court No.1), Kanpur Nagar.
Aggrieved with this judgment, the tenant-petitioner filed S.C.C. Revision No.104 of 2012 (Abdul Gaffar v. Mohd. Wasiq), which has been dismissed by the impugned judgment dated 6.5.2019 passed by the Additional District Judge (Court No.23), Kanpur Nagar.
Aggrieved with these two judgments, the tenant-petitioner has filed the present petition.
I have carefully considered the submissions of the learned counsels for the parties.
The tenant-petitioner claims himself to be the co-owner but could not file any evidence. He admitted himself to be a tenant. The house was purchased by the plaintiff-landlord/respondent. Therefore, the findings of fact recorded by the courts below that the plaintiff-respondent is landlord and the petitioner is the tenant, does not suffer from any legal infirmity. Both the courts below have recorded concurrent findings of fact that the tenant-petitioner has not deposited the arrears of rent etc. on the first date of hearing. This finding of fact could not be disputed by the learned counsel for the tenant-petitioner. Thus, the impugned judgments passed by the courts below and the findings recorded therein do not suffer from any legal infirmity.
For all the reasons afore-stated, I do not find any merits in this petition. Consequently, the writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed.
Order Date :- 25.7.2019 Ak/