Kumar Keshari Vs. Ganesh & Ors  INSC 1573 (14 September 2009)
APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.6246 OF 2009 (Arising out of S.L.P. (C)
No.14628 of 2006) Arun Kumar Keshari ...Appellant(s) Versus Ganesh & Ors.
O R D E R
filed by Smt. Sushila Devi - predecessor of the appellant herein for eviction
of the tenant, namely, Panna alias Pannalal on the ground of default in payment
of rent and subletting the tenanted premises, i.e., shop to Bullu alias Bhagelu
was decreed by Additional Small Causes Judge, Varanasi (hereinafter referred to
as "the trial Court") vide judgment dated 17.11.1999. The revision
filed by Bullu and Pannalal under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause
Courts Act, 1887 [for short, "the Act"] was dismissed by Additional
District Judge, Varanasi (appellate Court), which independently evaluated and
analysed the pleadings and evidence of the parties and concurred with the
findings recorded by the trial Court on the issues of default and subletting.
Pannalal challenged the orders of the trial and appellate Courts by filing writ
petition, which has been allowed by the impugned order. The learned Single
Judge upset the concurrent findings recorded by the two courts, set aside the
order of eviction and dismissed the suit. Hence, this appeal by special leave.
heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. The trial Court
after threadbare consideration of the factual matrix of the case and evidence
of the parties, recorded a categorical finding that Pannalal was tenant of the
demise premises, i.e., shop and that the tenant not only committed default in
payment of rent, but also sublet the shop to Bullu without the consent of the
landlord. The trial Court specifically rejected the theory that Purushottam and
not Pannalal was the tenant. The trial Court further held that Bullu cannot
claim any right over the shop in question.
findings were confirmed by the appellate Court.
Court interfered with the concurrent findings of fact without adverting to the
pleadings of the case and evidence produced by the parties. It has not come to
the conclusion that the findings of fact recorded by the two courts were perverse.
Rather the writ petition has been decided only on the basis of surmises and
counsel appearing for the respondents also failed to point out any patent
infirmity in the findings recorded by the trial Court and appellate Court on the
issue of subletting. Therefore, the order passed by the High Court cannot be
the appeal is allowed, impugned order rendered by the High Court is set aside
and the writ petition filed by the respondents is dismissed.
respondents are granted time till 30th June, 2010, to vacate the premises in
question upon filing usual undertaking in this Court within four weeks from
directed that in case the respondents fail to vacate the premises in question
within the aforesaid time, it would be open to the decree holder to file an
execution petition for delivery of possession and in case such a petition has
been already filed, an application shall be filed therein to the effect that
the respondents have not vacated the premises in question within the time
granted by this Court. In either eventuality, the Executing Court is not
required to issue any notice to the respondents.
Executing Court will see that delivery of possession is effected within a
period of fifteen days from the date of filing of the execution petition or the
application aforementioned. In case for delivery of possession any armed force
is necessary, the same shall be deputed by the Superintendent of Police within
forty eight hours from the date requisition is received therefore. It is also
directed that in case anybody else, other than the respondents, is found in
possession, he shall also be dispossessed from the premises in question.
......................J. [B.N. AGRAWAL]
......................J. [G.S. SINGHVI]
September 14, 2009.