Nishith Kumar Birla vs Mashrrat Husain

Abhinava Upadhya, J.—Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for respondents

By means of this writ petition the order of the revisional court dated 28.10.2013 has been challenged by which the decree of the trial court dated 28.5.2013 was set-aside. A suit was filed under Section 20 of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (in short the Act) by the landlord. The said suit was tried and was dismissed by decree dated 17.9.2010 against which the landlord-respondent filed a revision being Revision No. 4 of 2011 before the Additional District Judge, Court No.1, Agra.

After filing of the revision it appears that an application has been filed by the landlord stating therein that the tenants-defendants had purchased a separate property and, therefore, they are not entitled to the benefit of Section 20(4) of the said Act. The said application was contested and the revisional court remanded the matter to the trial court directing that in view of the new evidence brought before the court, the trial court to decide the question with regard to the benefit in view of proviso to sub-section (4) of Section 20 of the Act. The matter was remanded to the trial court by order dated 17.10.2012. At that stage the respondent-landlord filed an application that the entire matter be heard afresh. The defendant-tenant objected to the same that in the trial proceedings 9 issues were framed and were decided and at the revisional court level the additional evidence was brought on record and, therefore, only to that extent the matter has been remanded back to the trial court to decide the question of the new material being brought on record and, therefore, the entire matter need not be heard and only to the extent of new evidence be considered and decided. The trial court allowed the application of the landlord by order dated 28.5.2013. The tenant-petitioner then filed a revision against the said order, which revision has also been rejected. Hence, this writ petition by the tenant.

I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties.

The SCC suit has been decided framing 9 issues in favour of the tenant. At the stage of revision a fresh evidence has been brought to the light that the son of the tenant-petitioner has brought certain property and, therefore, they are not entitled to the benefit of proviso to sub-section (4) of Section 20 of the Act.

It appears from the revisional court''s order that the entire arguments were based on new facts brought on record and apparently upon a fresh evidence, the matter has been remanded to the trial court to decide that question.

Considering the issues framed by the trial court, if any decision is taken on the fresh material, it would not in any manner affect the other issues already decided, therefore, it would be appropriate to direct the trial court to confine itself to decide the question with regard to the fresh evidence brought before the revisional court.

It is to be noted that the decision on the fresh evidence is amenable to challenge by either of the parties before the revisional court including the other earlier decided issues.

Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and the order dated 28.10.2013 is set aside with the direction to the Judge, Small Causes Court, Agra to frame separate issues with regard to a fresh evidence and decide only to that extent, as far as possible, within a period of four month from the date a certified copy of this order is presented before the court concerned.

Learned counsel for the parties undertakes on behalf of their clients that no unnecessary adjournment will be sought by them before the court concerned.