Suresh Jain vs Girdhar Balwani

With the consent of Learned Counsel appearing for the parties, the revision is heard and decided finally.

A suit for ejectment of the Applicant/defendant from the suit property was filed by the Respondent/plaintiff. As per pleading of the

Respondent/plaintiff, the suit premises was owned by Shri Chhapru Panchayat and the Respondent/plaintiff had purchased the suit property vide

registered sale-deed dated 6.1.2005. The Applicant/defendant was holding the suit property under Shri Chhapru Panchayat and had become a tenant

of the Respondent/plaintiff by operation of law. Ejectment of the Applicant/defendant from the suit property has been sought on the ground of bona

fide need and non-payment of arrears of rent. After submission of the written statement, the Trial Court framed issues and issue No.7 was decided as

preliminary issue and answered in negative against the present Applicant/defendant. Preliminary issue No.7 reads as under:

 “D;k okn i= esa of.kZr fodz; i= fnukad 06@01@2005 esa of.kZr laifRr dk mfpr ewY;kadu ugha fd;k x;k gS vkSj vi;kZIr LVkai 'kqYd ij nLrkost

fy[kk x;k gS ? ;fn gka rks bldk izHkkoAâ€​

Learned Counsel appearing for the Applicant/defendant submits that according to the pleadings of the Applicant/defendant, in sale-deed dated

6.1.2005, proper valuation of the sold property was not done and the sale-deed was got registered on insufficient stamp-fee. But, while deciding the

above issue, the Trial Court did not decide the said point, rather it decided the issue on the ground that the Respondent/plaintiff's suit was properly

valued and stamped and appropriate Court-fee was paid.

Learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent/plaintiff submits that the suit is of landlord and tenant. Therefore, sale-deed dated 6.1.2005 was

properly stamped and valued or not is not to be decided in the present suit. Therefore, the Trial Court has rightly decided the preliminary issue No.7 in

favour of the Respondent/plaintiff.

I have heard Learned Counsel appearing for the parties and perused the material available with due care.

It is clear that issue No.7 was framed by the Trial Court itself in which sale-deed dated 6.1.2005 was properly valued and stamped or not was to be

decided, but while deciding the said issue, the Trial Court has not decided the same, rather it decided the same that the suit filed by the

Respondent/plaintiff is properly valued and stamped. In these circumstances, the impugned order dated 24.1.2017 is not maintainable.

In the result, the revision is allowed. The impugned order dated 24.1.2017 is set aside. The matter is remanded back to the Trial Court for fresh

decision on issue No.7 in accordance with law. The decision shall be taken as early as possible.

A copy of this order be sent to the Trial Court for information and necessary compliance.