CourtKutchehry.com
High Courts(2000) 02 AHC CK 0070

Amir Hussain vs Abdul Majeed and Others

Allahabad High Court · Decided on 18 February 2000

HON’BLE JUDGES
S.N.Agarwal, J
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
Civil Miscellaneous Writ Petition No. 16147 of 1991

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

5 paragraphs · 370 words

Sudhir Narain, J.—This writ petition is directed against the order of respondent No. 2 dated 2541991 whereby the revision was allowed and the suit filed by the plaintiffrespondent was decreed.

2.

Briefly stated the facts are that respondent No. 1 filed Suit No. 148 of 1984 against the petitioner for recovery of arrears of rent, ejectment and damages with the allegations that the petitioner was tenant of the disputed premises at monthly rent of Rs. 25. He had also executed a rent deed on 1111981. The petitioner filed written statement and denied that there was any relationship of landlord and tenant. He also denied that he ever executed a rentdeed. The trial Court dismissed the suit on the finding that the plaintiff failed to prove that there was any relationship of landlord and tenant. The plaintiffrespondent filed revision against the said order. Respondent No. 2 has allowed the revision by the impugned order.

3.

Sri Tarun Bhattacharya, learned counsel for the petitioner, contended that the revisional Court was not justified in setting aside the findings on the question of relationship of landlord and tenant. In Laxrni Kishore and others v. Har Prasad Shukla, 1979 ACJ 473, it has been held that the revisional Court on coming to the conclusion that there was any misreading of evidence or there was any error of facts in the order passed by the Judge Small Causes Court can remand the matter to the trial Court for decision afresh in the mailer. The trial Court had not accepted the rentdeed as a genuine document. The revisinal Court had observed that the finding given by the trial Court was against the evidence on the record. As stated above the revisional Court should have remanded the matter.

4.

In view of the writ petition is allowed. The Judge Small Causes Court is directed to decide the case afresh in accordance with law and also consider the documents which have been referred to by the revisional Court in its order. As the case is very old the trial Court shall decide the suit within three months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order.

5.

The parties shall bear their own costs. Petition allowed.