ABDUL SHAMIM Versus SAEED AHMAD

1. This Revision is directed against an order dated 7‑5‑1983 passed by the learned Judge, Small Causes Court in D.W. Application No.241 of 1980, whereby the learned Judge was pleased to dismiss the present petitioner's objection to the above D.W. Application.

2. The brief facts leading to the filing of the above Revision are that the respondent filed above D.W. Application for the recovery of a sum of Rs.1,870 as arrears of rent for the period from 1‑10‑1979 to 31‑8‑1980. The above application was resisted by the present petitioner and inter alia it was averred that the respondent had not produced the original Lease Agreement dated 11‑6‑1974. The applicant filed objection to the above D.W. Application and in pars 3 of the objection the following averments have been made:‑

2. "That the applicant has not produced original copy of the Tenancy agreement dated 11‑6‑1974, which the applicant himself fraudulently cancelled and prepared a forged tenancy agreement dated 8‑7‑1975, and filed in the Rent Case No. 3951 of 1979 which afterwards was withdrawn by the applicant. Then the applicant agreed to sell the land against consideration of Rs.26,000 for which Rs.8,000 were adjusted against the deposit and Rs.10,000 were paid in cash in the presence of witnesses, and the balance of Rs.8,000 were agreed to be paid at the time of sale‑deed."

3. A perusal of the above para indicates that the applicant had admitted the factum of tenancy, then he pleaded the fact of purchase of the suit property from the respondent. It appears from the order dated 26‑11‑1986 of this Court in this Revision that the applicant was allowed time to produce a stay order in Suit No.468 of 1980 which has been filed by him against the respondent: In my view, for the purpose of present revision application, it will suffice to observe that since the applicant had admitted tenancy and then pleaded the purchase, the learned Judge, Small Causes Court could order the issuance of D.W. for the rent. However; this is subject to the result in the Civil Suit. I. do not find any wrong with the order of the learned Judge, Small Causes Court. I would, therefore, dismiss the above revision with no order as to costs with the proviso that in case the applicant succeeds in obtaining a stay order in aforesaid Suit No. 468 of 1980 against the respondent within a period of 60 days from today the amount deposited in this Revision namely Rs. 1, 870 will not be paid to the respondent but in case the applicant fails to obtain any stay order within the above specified period, which will not be extended, the above amount may be paid, to the respondent.''

4. A.A/A-283/K ? ?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Order accordingly .