The supplementary affidavit filed today in the Court may be taken on record.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and to Sri Vimal Kishor Verma, learned counsel for respondent No.3.
By means of the present writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the orders passed by the trial Court in regular Suit No.470/2001 filed by respondent No.3 for arrears of rent and eviction, wherein the petitioner filed written statement taking objection that the suit is barred under Section 331 of the Revenue Act as well as the valuation of the suit is more than Rs.12,000/-, therefore, it is not cognizable before the Civil Judge (Junior Division). The trial Court after considering the evidence and the material on record by recording finding allowed the suit vide judgment and decree dated 15.11.2008 with a direction to the petitioner to evict the premises within three months.
Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner preferred revision No.9 of 2008, which has been dismissed by the revisional Court affirming the judgment and order passed by the trial Court.
Both the orders passed by the lower Court are under challenge in the present writ petition on the ground that both the Courts below have committed manifest error of law in not considering the fact that the house is situated in a village and has never been declared to be Aabadi land, therefore, the proceeding would have been initiated under Section 331 of the Revenue Act.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the statement of Ms. Jaswant Kaur has also not been properly considered and taken notice by the Courts below. His further submission is that the objection taken by the petitioner in regard to the jurisdictional error in entertaining the suit has also not been considered by both the Courts below.
On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.3 submitted that both the Courts below have committed no illegality while passing the orders. In passing the judgments, each and every objection raised in the written statement and the evidence placed in support of the statement of fact were duly considered and thereafter, the impugned orders have been passed. Thus, his submission is that both the orders impugned do not suffer from any infirmity or illegality.
Having heard the rival contentions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, I perused the material on record.
On perusal of the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court, it is apparent that the objections raised in the written statement were duly considered and the evidence relied upon were taken care of and thereafter, by recording finding the claim set up in the written statement was rejected and the trial Court passed the judgment and decree in favour of respondent No.3.
The revisional Court in the revision has examined the material on record and found that the trial Court has committed no error in passing the judgment and decree in favour of the plaintiff respondent No.3.
In the opinion of this Court, both the Courts below have considered each and every aspect of the matter and committed no illegality in passing the orders impugned.
Accordingly, the writ petition lacks merit and is hereby dismissed.
Order Date :- 30.7.2019 Adarsh K Singh