MOHD. SAGHEER v. ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE, COURT NO. 3, DISTT. FAIZABAD AND ANOTHER
WRIA/1662/2023 · 2025-07-28
Pankaj Bhatia
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 124357 (ALL) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 124357 (ALL) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:43579 Court No. - 7 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 1662 of 2023 Petitioner :- Mohd. Sagheer Respondent :- Addl. District Judge, Court No. 3, Distt. Faizabad And Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Ishwar Dutt Shukla,Rakesh Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- Bhanu Pratap Mishra,Ashish Kumar Srivastava,Umesh Chandra Pandey Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.
1. A request has been made by Shri Virendra Kumar Tiwari, Advocate holding brief of Shri Rakesh Kumar Srivastava for passing over the matter, as the matter is very old arisen out of a Suit filed in the year 2010, I am not inclined to adjourn the matter.
2. Learned counsel for the respondent(s) is present.
3. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 12.05.2014 passed by the Judge Small Causes Court as well as the order dated 17.11.2022 passed by the Additional District Judge, Court No.3, Faizabad (now District Ayodhya), whereby the revision was dismissed.
4. The fact is in question that the petitioner is a tenant of the premises at a monthly rent of Rs. 300/- per month, however, a notice was served alleging that the rent was not being paid, as the rent were not paid despite notice, the suit in question was filed for decree of ejectment and arrears of rent, the petitioner, who is a tenant, put in appearance and contested the said suit. Based upon the pleadings, the specific issue with regard to the default was framed and decided against the petitioner holding that there was default in payment of the rent, the benefit of Section 20(4) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 as well as Order 15 Rule-5 CPC was also not accepted, as the entire rent required to be deposited, was not deposited.
5. Based upon the said findings of fact, the suit in question was
decreed. The petitioner preferred a revision and the revisional court considered submissions and after considering the evidence on record, affirmed the findings recorded by the Judge Small Causes Court.
6. As findings of fact have been recorded with regard to the default committed, no interference is called for.
7. The petition lacks merits and is accordingly dismissed.
Order Date :- 28.7.2025 Praveen Digitally signed by :- PRAVEEN KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench