Court No. - 52
Case :- S.C.C. REVISION No. - 98 of 2019 Revisionist :- Rohit Lalwani Opposite Party :- Smt. Geeta Devi Counsel for Revisionist :- Sheetla Sahai Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- Rama Pati Tripathi,Anand Mohan Pandey
Hon'ble Neeraj Tiwari,J.
Heard learned counsel for the revisionist-defendant and Sri Anand Mohan Pandey, learned counsel for the respondent- plaintiff.
By way of present prevision, revisionist is challenging the judgment and order dated 7.8.2019 passed by Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court No. V, Kanpur Nagar in SCC Suit No. 125 of 2015 (Smt. Geeta Devi Vs. Rohit Lalwani).
Learned counsel for the revisionist-defendant submitted that SCC Suit No. 125 of 2015 was filed by respondent- plaintiff for eviction of revisionist-defendant, which was allowed vide judgment and order dated 7.8.2019. The revisionist-defendant is challenging the judgment and order dated 7.8.2019 basically on two grounds. Firstly, the judgment and order of the court below is exparte without hearing the revisionist-defendant and secondly there are two rent agreements, one dated 10.9.2009 between the respondent-plaintiff and father of the revisionist-defendant and other agreement dated 18.4.2013 between the revisionist-defendant and respondent-plaintiff. He next submitted that second agreement has never been executed and revisionist-defendant was never the tenant of the respondent-plaintiff.
Sri Anand Mohan Pandey, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the judgment and order has never been passed exparte. In fact, earlier the revisionist- defendant has not appeared before the court below and ultimately vide order dated 24.3.2018 his defence was struck off, against which Revision No. 43 of 2018 was filed which was ultimately dismissed as infructuous vide order dated 24.3.2018. He also submitted that after that the revisionist-defendant was given an opportunity for cross examination, but he has taken several adjournment and ultimately 7.8.2018 was fixed as last date for cross examination. Again on 7.8.2018 the revisionist-defendant has not appeared and ultimately opportunity for cross examination was closed vide order dated 7.8.2018. Against the said order, the revisionist-defendant filed Recall Application No. 40Ga and ultimately the same was also rejected vide order dated 28.8.2018 which was never challenged, therefore, contention of the learned counsel for the revisionist is absolutely contrary to the facts and the court below has rightly proceeded to pass order which is not exparte as alleged by the revisionist-defendant.
He also submitted that the court below has framed four issues and issue no. 1 was that whether there is relationship of tenant and landlord between the revisionist- defendant and respondent-plaintiff and it was decided after considering both the rent agreements after recording the statement of the prosecution witnesses. Court below has held that there is relationship of tenant and landlord. Therefore, this contention is also not acceptable.
I have considered the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. Vide order dated 24.3.2018 defence of revisionist was struck off which was challenged in revision No. 43 of 2018 and dismissed vide order dated 7.8.2019. The court below has also given opportunity for cross examination to revisionist-defendant, but due to non appearance of the respondent-plaintiff defence was closed on 7.8.2018 and recall application was also rejected on 28.8.2018 which was never challenged, therefore, ground taken by the revisionist is not sustainable. Therefore, court below rightly proceeded to decide SCC suit and order is not exparte. I have also perused the issue no. 1 decided by the court below. There is clear cut finding of the relationship of tenant and landlord between the revisionist-plaintiff and respondent- defendant after considering the material available on record and statement of witnesses, therefore, this argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is also not acceptable.
Under such facts and circumstances of the case, there is no illegality in the order dated 7.8.2019 passed by revisional court. The revision lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed.
No order as to cost.
Order Date :- 27.11.2019 Rmk.