Sharfuddin vs Jafar Ali and Another

Arun Tandon, J.—This writ petition arises out of an order passed on Application (Paper No. 58-C and No. 59-C).

Facts in short giving rise to the present writ petition are as follows:

Small Causes Suit No. 24 of 1994 was instituted by the father of Respondent No. 1 and husband of Respondent No. 2 to the present writ petition for a decree of eviction against the present Petitioners on the ground that tenant has committed default in payment of rent. The suit was decreed under the judgment and order of the Civil Judge (Junior Division) dated 23.05.2007. The Defendants were directed to be evicted as well as payment of arrears of rent/damages for use of the premises was also directed.

The Defendant filed Revision No. 15 of 2007 u/s 25 of the U.P. Small Causes Courts Act. The Revision is pending for last four years. In the aforesaid revision, applications were filed being Paper No. 58-C and 59-A for a direction to permit the tenant to repair the portion of the shop which has been damaged during the pendency of the revision proceedings in clear violation of the interim order passed in the revision. The applications have been rejected under the impugned order after recording a finding that permission to re-construct the shop u/s 28 of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 has been asked for. Under the order of the Judge, Small Causes, a categorical finding has been recorded that provision of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 are not applicable to the building in question and, therefore, the application made for the purpose cannot be granted at this stage of the revisional proceedings.

I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the present writ petition.

I am of the considered opinion that the order passed by the Revisional Court does not warrant any interference. Unless the issue with regard to the applicability of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 is adjudicated in the revision, no direction at an interim stage can be issued with reference to the provisions of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 as any such direction would prejudice the case of the parties.

In the totality of the circumstances, no interference is warranted. Since the proceedings for eviction have been pending since 1994, it is desirable that the Revision No. 15 of 2007 be proceeded with on day to day basis, without granting any unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties. The same be finally decided preferably within three months from the date a certified copy of this order is filed before the Court concerned.

Writ petition is disposed of.