9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (2) TMI 485X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... needed badly over the rented property carried out by him and the landlord told him to deduct the amount of repairs from the rent that was admitted between the parties. It is the case of revisionist that the rent of the property in question which is situated on first floor of a building situated on the Nishatganj main road for four rooms is Rs. 3000/- per month and for the same building Nagar Nigam assessment carried out showed that annual rental value is rupees two lacs nine thousand and odd. It has been submitted by the counsel for the revisionist that the landlord had admitted before the learned trial court that he was getting rent of Rs. 18000/- per month for the second floor on which a Coaching institute was being run on 1800 square feet therefore, the petitioner who had rented only four small rooms that is on first floor i.e. around 608 square feet, was rightly taken on rent of Rs. 3000/- per month. Learned counsel for the caveator Sri Danish Rasheed has pointed out from statement of the revisionist that his electricity bill was around Rs. 6000/- to Rs. 7000/- per month. He has also pointed out from the statement made before the trial court that the petitioner had rente ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... follows: 7. The respondent had filed a S.C.C. Suit No.59 of 2016 for arrears of rent and eviction of the revisionist from house no.498/207/2/Lakshmi Bhawan between Nishatganj Lucknow stating therein that the building in question is a commercial building and facing Indira Bridge/ Fly over on one side and Nishatganj railway line on the other side situated in the main market and that the revisionist had taken four rooms on the first floor of the said building for commercial purpose at Rs. 8,000/- per month. At the time of beginning of tenancy in November, 2015, the revisionist had paid Rs. 8,000/- in cash for which receipt no.832 was issued by the landlord and also paid an amount of Rs. 9,000/- in cash for which a receipt no.831 was issued to the revisionist. Thereafter, the revisionist established his business/ Customer Care Center for Bank of Baroda on the tenanted premises but failed to pay rent. On repeated reminders the revisionist paid Rs. 8,000/- through cheque as rent for the month of December, 2015, which cheque was dishonored and the landlord had to initiate proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrumental Act against the revisionist. Since no rent was paid for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 9. In his replication, the landlord seriously disputed the contention made in the written statement by the revisionist and referred to two receipts issued by him, namely, receipt no.831 and 832 on 15.11.2015 only for Rs. 8,000/- deposited as rent for the month of November, 2015 and Rs. 9,000/- deposited as security money. It was further reiterated that after payment of Rs. 17,000/- as aforesaid in cash, no other payment was done by the revisionist. The contention of the revisionist that it was agreed upon to build a cabin on the ground floor near the stair case was also denied on the ground that there was a toilet near the stair case and a common passage which was to be used by other tenants of the building also, hence there was no question of any promise having been made to construct a cabin on the common passage for the revisionist as alleged. It was also stated that the amount deposited by the revisionist of Rs. 89,600/- on 21.12.2017 cannot be treated to be sufficient compliance of the Order XV Rule 5 of the C.P.C. It was reiterated that the building in question was commercial premises and the revisionist had taken on rent four large rooms on the first floor and the allegation ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... learned counsel for the revisionist, learned counsel for the revisionist had laid emphasis on the fact that a coaching institute was being run on the second floor of the same building on 1800 sq. ft. area for which the rate of rent of Rs. 18,000/- per month had been admitted by the landlord and therefore, the revisionist who had rented only four small rooms of an area of 608 sq. ft. was right in his submission that the rent was agreed upon is Rs. 3,000/- per month in November, 2015. The reason for non-payment of rent was also emphasized that there was an oral agreement between the landlord and tenant for carrying out certain repairs and construction which was not done, as a result whereof the revisionist had to carry out the said repairs and he withheld the rent to claim reimbursement. 14. When the matter was argued afresh on recall/ review application, learned counsel for the revisionist has raised three grounds of challenge. Firstly, that the dispute was with regard to the rate of rent as agreed upon by the landlord and the tenant and the said issue was not decided by the trial court on the basis of documentary and oral evidence produced before it, but was decided on the basis o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... evidence on question of fact is not ordinarily to be interfered with by a revisional court unless the same is perverse or is based on taking inadmissible evidence into consideration or is based on misreading of evidence. But for there to be a consideration of relevant evidence, the evidence led must be appreciated by application of a judicial mind. When both sides in a suit or proceeding lead their evidence, the court is required to appreciate the evidence and, thereafter, to draw its conclusion on the issue." 17. The learned counsel for the revisionist has led this Court through the finding recorded regarding rate of rent by the learned trial court and says that it is based only on the fact that building in question was situated in Nishatganj main market adjacent to Indira Bridge, Faizbad Road, and that four large rooms on the first floor of the said building had been rented out by the landlord and it was hard to believe that any reasonable man on the basis of the location of the building and the area of the tenanted premises, would have agreed to meager rent of Rs. 3,000/- per month only. 18. The learned counsel for the revisionist has also read out the findings recorded by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t, 12x10 feet and 8x6 feet on rent on a commercial building situated in the main Nishatganj market next to the Indira Bridge, Faizabad Road. 21. Learned counsel for the respondent has also pointed out the finding recorded by the learned trial court that the building in question had a restaurant, a coaching institute and other shops situated in it. It was emphasized that no reasonable person could have let out such a huge commercial space on such meager rent as alleged by the tenant. 22. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, this Court has carefully perused the judgment and order dated 25.08.2020 challenged in this Revision. It finds that learned trial court while deciding the issue no.1 with regard to whether Rs. 8,000/- had been agreed upon as rent by the landlord and the tenant, had considered in detail, the situation of the building, the covered area of the tenanted premises and also the photographs of the building and its situation as produced before the trial court. The rent reciepts were also produced in original. The trial court emphasized also the fact that for the same premises the tenant had taken an independent electricity connection for which he was paying ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act; the said Section requires only that notice to quit has to be sent either by Post to the party or be tendered or delivered personally to such party or to one of his family members or servants at his residence, or if such tender or delivery is not practicable, affixed to a conspicuous part of the property. In the case of the revisionist, the plaintiff had filed original documents to show that notice was sent by Speed Post and the tracking receipt was also filed. The judgement cited by the counsel for the revisionist in Sagar vs Vth Additional District Judge (Supra) is clearly distinguishable on facts. 25. This Court has carefully gone through the statement of the revisionist. The relevant extract of which has been filed at page-86 to page 87 of the application for interim relief. It finds that there is no contention raised by the tenant before the learned trial court that notice was not served as it was sent on a wrong address; rather the tenant had stated that the notice was not served upon him because he may have been out of station as he worked as a Recovery Agent also for the Bank of Baroda and had to undertake certai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... islations in different States was considered by a Constitution Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited vs Dilbahar Singh 2014 (9) SCC 78; the Supreme Court in the said judgment has referred to several state Acts but has concluded that none of the Acts conferred on Revisional Authority the power as wide as that of the Appeal "despite such statutory revisional power being wider than that provided in section 115 of the C.P.C.", the provision in a revision does not permit the High Court to invoke its revisional jurisdiction under the cloak of an appeal in disguise. The Revisional Court is not entitled to re-appreciate the evidence and substitute its own conclusion in place of the conclusion of the Trial court. The decision emphasises that the examination of findings of fact by the High Court is limited to satisfy itself that the decision is "according to law". The High Court has only to satisfy itself as to the legality, regularity, or propriety of the decision or that it is according to law and does not suffer from any error of law. Whether or not a finding of fact recorded by a subordinate court is according to law is required to be seen on the t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
