Court No. - 26
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 13330 of 2018 Petitioner :- Hari Om Sharma Respondent :- Additional District Judge/Ftc Gautam Budh Nagar And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Saurabh Sachan,Ashwani Kumar Sachan
Hon'ble Mrs. Sangeeta Chandra,J.
(Oral)
1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 09.05.2016 passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division)/Judge, Small Causes Court, District Gautam Budh Nagar in SCC Case No. 4 of 2013 and order dated 20.04.2018 passed by the Additional District Judge/Fast Track Court No. 1, District Gautam Budh Nagar in SCC Revision No. 3 of 2016.
2. The story set up in the writ petition is to the effect that the petitioner Hari Om Sharma son of Shri Prasad Sharma is owner of a Tea Stall which he has set up in front of Sharma Medical Store, Jain Mandir and he says that the petitioner was wrongly impleaded as a party in the SCC Suit. He has also said in the writ petition that no notice was served upon him by the landlord under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. The medical store is being run by respondent No. 4, Purshottam Sharma son of Shri Surendra Kumar Sharma and the Trial Court has illegally decreed the case for eviction and recovery of arrears of rent without considering the fact that actual and real tenant of the shop is the proprietor of Sharma Medical Store, Shri Purshottam Sharma son of Shri Surendra Kumar Sharma, who was neither served a notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act nor made as a defendant in the aforesaid case. The burden of proof about tenancy and actual tenant lies upon the landlord i.e. respondent No. 3, Rajendra Prasad, and he could not prove that the petitioner was the tenant of the shop in question. Shri Purshottam Sharma is real proprietor of Sharma Medical Store who has not been impleaded as defendant-tenant and on the other hand, the petitioner who is running a Tea Stall in front of Sharma Medical Store has been shown as the sole tenant and illegally the decree has been passed against him. The Additional District Judge has also arbitrarily rejected his revision.
3. I have gone through the order passed by the learned Trial court and the Revisional Court and I find from the papers filed along with the writ petition, the cross-examination of the petitioner, Hari Om Sharma son of Shri Purshottam Sharma dated 05.04.2016 filed at page No. 64 and 65 of the Paper Book, which clearly admits that the petitioner is the tenant of Rajendra Prasad since the time when the shop was contructed i.e. in 1998-1999. Earlier, Rajendra Prasad used to give receipt. Later on, he stopped giving the receipt. He has also admitted that he has not paid the rent since 16th of January, 2013 and has also admitted that he was issued notice by the landlord, and his Advocate has replied to the said notice and that after such notice of arrears of rent was received, he made no effort to give the arrears of rent to the landlord through Money Order as was required under law.
4. The story set up in the writ petition is completely false, misleading, abuse of the process of Court and wastage of time.
5. The petition is dismissed with a cost of Rs.10,000/- which the petitioner shall deposit within one month in the Registry of this Court. In case, the petitioner fails to deposit Rs.10,000/- as directed by this Court, the Registry shall forward a copy of this order to the Collector, who shall recover the cost as arrears of rent from the movable and immovable property of the petitioner.
Order Date :- 30.5.2018 LBY