Court No. - 7
Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 1836 of 2018 Petitioner :- Vijay Singh Respondent :- Gopal Krishna Gangal Counsel for Petitioner :- Dharmendra Singhal,Shivendra Raj Singhal Counsel for Respondent :- Ashish Agrawal
Hon'ble Surya Prakash Kesarwani,J.
Heard Sri Dharmendra Singhal, learned counsel for the defendant- tenant/petitioner and Sri Ashish Agrawal, learned counsel for the plaintiff- landlord/respondent.
The only point argued by learned counsel for the defendant- tenant/petitioner in this petition is that "whether the disputed shop was constructed prior to 1985"?
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the disputed shop was constructed in the year 1981 and, therefore, the courts below have committed manifest error of law to hold that the disputed shop was constructed in the year 1989-1990.
Sri Ashish Agrawal, learned counsel for the plaintiff-landlord/respondent supports the impugned judgment.
Concurrent findings of fact have been recorded in the impugned judgment, dated 28.1.2016, in SCC Suit No.30 of 2012 (Sri Gopal Krishna Gangal Vs. Sri Vijay Singh), passed by the Judge Small Causes Court, Aligarh, and the judgment dated 16.12.2017, in SCC Revision No.18 of 2016 (Sri Vijay Singh Vs. Sri Gopal Krishna Gangal), passed by the Additional District Judge, Court No.6, Aligarh, to the effect that the disputed shop was constructed between the year 1987 to 1990. The aforesaid finding is based on consideration of the papers filed alongwith list 71-Ga being building sanctioned map by Nagar Palika Parishad, Khair, District - Aligarh, dated 2.1.1990 (paper No.53-Ga) sanction letter of District Road Site Land Control Officer, Aligarh, dated 2.4.1987, (paper No.54-Ga), map sanctioned by Chairman Nagar Palika Parishad, Khair, District - Aligarh, dated 7.3.1990 (paper No.55-Ga) and sanctioned map by District Road Site Land Control Officer, Aligarh, dated 2.4.1987 (paper No.56-Ga). The findings so recorded in the impugned judgments are findings of fact based on consideration of relevant evidences on record and as such the said findings can not be interfered with under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
In view of the aforesaid, I do not find any merit in this petition. Consequently, the petition fails and is hereby dismissed.
Order Date :- 27.3.2018/vkg