Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

BHOLA SINGH GAUR versus STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Bhola Singh Gaur v. State Of U.P. And Others - WRIT - A No. 58993 of 2006 [2006] RD-AH 21272 (18 December 2006)

 

This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD

Hon'ble Rakesh Tiwari, J

Heard counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.

This is tenant's petition.

  This writ application is directed against the impugned order dated 29.7.2006, passed by Upper Sessions Judge, Court No. 5, Fatehpur rejecting the claim of the petitioner in Misc. case no. 12/72/2000- Bhola Singh son of  Dilip Singh and others Vs. Devi Prasad Gupta, son of Beni Madhav Gupta and others.

Late Sri Devi Prasad Gupta filed release application under Section 21(1)(a) of the U.P. Urband Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction ) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as '' U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972), which was registered as S.C.C Suit no. 3 of 1990 for recovery of Rs.66,000/- as arrears of rent along with pendente lite and future interest at the rate of 1.5% per month and for recovery of possession of the premises, in dispute claiming himself to be landlord of house no. 144 Civil Lines, Fatehpur in which defendnat no. 2- Panchayat Raj Adhikari Fatehpur was a tenant on monthly rent of Rs.1500/- in addition of Rs. 187.50P as house tax and water tax

It was alleged in the plaint that the Panchyat Raj Adhikari, Fatehpur, a department of the State Government was a tenant on rent through the Collector, Fatehpur.  It was also alleged that rent of part of the accommodation, in dispute, was not paid after February, 1987 amounting to Rs.204.75P and thereafter rent for the period w.e.f. March, 1987 to December, 1989 amounting to Rs. 57,375 is in arrears.

The case of the plaintiff-landlord in the suit was that despite repeated requests- orally and in writing for payment of rent, the defendants deliberately did not pay the rent and committed default in payment of rent.  Hence after service of notice under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the tenancy of the defendants was terminated vide notice dated 30.11.1989 under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act and thereafter the suit was filed for recovery of arrears of rent, damages and mesne profit from May, 1990 at the rate of Rs.1697.25P amounting to Rs.8437.50P i.e., a total sum of Rs.66,017.25P was due from the defendants. The relief sought in the suit was regarding recovery of rent, damages and mesne profit and for eviction.

The defendants contested the suit by filing written statement denying the plaint allegations inter alia that the suit was filed on false and frivolous grounds. The title of the landlord- Sri Devi Prasad Gupta who is now being represented by his sons- respondent nos. 3/1 and 3/2, namely, S/Sri Rajendra Kumar and Gyanendra Kumar was denied.  It was  alleged that the landlord of the house in dispute was one Sri Vijai Bhan Singh and that the State Government/Panchyat Raj Adhikari, Fatehpur was tenant at the rate of Rs.113.25P per month and that the department was orally informed by Sri Devi Prasad Gupta that he had purchased the house, in dispute and had become its landlord.  The department thereafter started paying rent to Sri Devi Prasad Gupta, the plaintiff.  

It was also alleged that it was agreed between the parties to the suit in 1987 that a sum of Rs.10,000/- including house and water taxes shall be paid as yearly  rent and accordingly, a sum of Rs.10,000/- through a cheque dated 20.2.1980 was paid and thereafter rent for the whole year of 1989 was also paid on 10.10.1980.

Apart from the admitted position that the rent was paid to late Sri Devi Prasad Gupta, it was also alleged by the State Government/ Panchayat Raj Adhikari that they were under pressure from the landlord to enhance the rent to Rs.1500/- together with  Rs.187.50P as taxes i.e., the total rent of Rs.1687.50P; that since they had no knowledge of enhancement of rent they continued to pay Rs.10,000/- as yearly rent inclusive of water and house taxes which was however adjusted against arrears of aforesaid yearly rent.

The case of the defendants was that they have paid arrears of rent upto 1989 and the landlord sent false notice claiming rent at the rate of Rs.1687.50P, which was not correct and in such circumstances, the notice sent by the landlord under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act was bad and illegal as tenancy of the defendants was not terminated by the said notice.  It was also alleged that the suit was bad for jon-joinder of necessary parties; that the suit was barred by time and that the the provisions of U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972 are not applicable since no rent was due from them and the suit was liable to be dmissed.

The trial court framed five issues and gave following findings of facts on each of the issues :-.

Issue No. 1 :  Whether defendant no. 2 is tenant at the rate of Rs.1500+ Rs.187.50 total Rs.1687.50P per month as rent?

"   The defendants produced no evidence in support of their allegations. The plaintiff challenged that the rate of rent was Rs.10,000/- per year. This challenge was denied by the defendants. The defendants issued letters to Panchayat Inspector, the copies of which were given to the plaintiff. These letters are dated 5.12.86, Ext. 6, dated 15.5.87, Ext. 18, dated 15.1.1987, Ext. 18, dated 15.1.1988, Ext. 7.  In all these letters, the defendants have specifically admitted the rate of rent to be Rs. 1687.50P including house tax and water tax.  The defendants did not produce any evidence. Even the departmental official have miserably failed to appear in the Court and deny the plaintiff's allegations.

Having considered the whole evidence of both the parties, it is clearly found that the rate of rent of the house in dispute is Rs.1500/- plus Rs.187.50P house taxes and water taxes. Thus, the total rent of the house including house tax and water tax is Rs.1687.50P per month.  The issue is, therefore, decided in favour of the plaintiff."

Issue No. 2 :  Whether any arrear of rent is due from the defendants?

" The plaintiff issued several notices of demand of arrears of rent through registered post. These letters and notices are dated 10.11.86, Ext. 1, postal receipt Exts. 2 and 3, acknowledgement Ext. 5, another notice dated 2.5.87, Ext. 8 postal receipts, Exts. 9 and 10, acknowledgement Exts. 11 and 12 another notice dated 1.12.87 Ext. 13, postal receipts, Exts. 14 and 15 acknowledgement Ext. 16 another notice dated 1.8.88 Ext. 19 postal receipts Exts. 20 and 22 acknowledgement, Ext. 21 and Ext. 23.  Another notice is dated 29.3.1989, Ext 24 postal receipt ext. 25 and the last notice is dated 30.11.1989, ext. 26, postal receipt is Ext. 27.  In reply to the above notices the defendants did not refuse the evidence to deny the arrears of rent. Thus, it is proved that the defendants are defaulter of payment of arrears of rent including house and water taxes due from February, 1987. The issue is, therefore, decided against the defendants and in favour of the plaintiff."

Issue No. 3 :  Whether the  notices terminating the tenancy are illegal and invalid? If so, its effects as alleged in paras 15,16 and 17 of the Written Statement?

" The learned counsel for the defendants argued that a combined notice u/s 80 C.P.C and 106 of the Transfer of Property Act is not proper.  This argument is  not acceptable.  It is pointed out that a combined notice of both the Sections may be given. The plaintiff has given an opportunity to the State Government to afford the benefit of Section 20(4) of Rent Control Act. The defendants did not deposit the arrears of rent on the first date of hearing; therefore, no benefit was given to the defendants. So far as the notices are concerned, they are valid and legal. No defect or lacunae is found in the notices. The plaintiff served several notices.  If there is any defectin any one notice, that has been removed by another notice. All these notices have been duly proved by the plaintiff. The notices were sent through registered post and acknowledgements were received. Thus, the notices are held to be legal and valid. The issue is, therefore, decided against the defendants.

Issue No. 4 :  Whether the suit is barred by time?

" The defendants have alleged that the suit of the plaintiff is barred by time. It is seen that the plaintiff has alleged that the arrears of rent is due from February, 1987. As rent, Rs. 204.75 is due for the month of February, 1987 and whole rent is due from March, 1987 onwards.  The plaintiff has filed this suit on 31.5.1990.  According to the limitation, the arrears of rent can be realised for the period of three years only.  The plaintiff has admitted the arrears from February, 1987. According to the Limitation Act, he can realise the arrears of rent from May, 1987.  The arrears of rent for the month of February, 1987, March, 1987, April, 1987 is barred by time. Thus, the amount of Rs. 3,579/- is time barred which cannot be claimed by the plaintiff.  The arrears from the month of May, 1987 onwarrds is within limitation which can be claimed by the plaintiff. Thus, after deducting the amount for the time barred period, the balance remains Rs.62,421/- which is within limitation.  The issue is partly decided in favour of the defendants holding that a sum of Rs.3,579/- for the period of February, 1987 to apriol 1987 is barred by time.

Issue No. 5 : To what relief, if any, is the plaintiff entitled ?

" In view of the finding on issue nos. 1 and 2, it is found that the defendant is defaulter in payment of rent from February 1987 onwards but the arrears for the month of February to April 1987 has become time barred, i.e., a sum of Rs.3,579/- ... but recovered being time barred. The balance of Rs.62,421/- is within time, which is recoverable from the defendants. Thus, the plaintiff is entitled to receive Rs.62,421/- as arrears of rent.  Nothing is reported to have been deposited u/s.30 of Rent Control and Eviction Act, 1972 and no arrears were deposited in the Court during the pendency of the suit.  They also did not claim any benefit under Section 20(4) of Act No. 13 of 1972.  Thus, the plaintiff is entitled to receive Rs. 62,421/- as arrears of rent. The defendants made no deposit u/s.20(4) of the Act No. 13 of 1972.  In these circumstances, the plaintiff is entitled to recover possession over the disputed premises.

The plaintiff has also claimed interest on the amount of arrears of rent.  The plaintiff claimed interest at the rate of 18% per annum. This rate appears to be excessive.  In view of Section 20(4) of the Rent Control and Eviction Act, the interest exceeding 9% per annum cannot be allowed.  The plaintiff is entitled to receive interest at the rate of 9% per annum on the arrears of rent and on payment of additional court fees in execution preceedings."

The trial Court vide its judgment and decree dated 22.5.1995 decreed the suit of the landlord for recovery of Rs.62,421/- as arrears of rent and possession over the premises after ejectment of Panchayat Raj Officer, Fatehpur together with interest at the rate of 9% per annum on the arrears of rent from the date on which it fell due till the recovery of the amount on payment additional Court fees.  It was also directed that the Panchayat Raj Adhikari, Fatehpur shall handover vacant possession of the premises, in question, within two months from the date of order failing which the landlord shall proceed immediately to get the premises.

The order is as under:-

"O R D E R

The suit of the plaintiff for recovery of Rs.62,421/- as arrears of rent and possession over the premises after ejectment of the defendant no. 2 is decreed with proportionate cost only.

The plaintiff shall also get interest @ 9% per annum on the arrears of rent from the date on which it falls due till the recovery of the amount on payment of additional Court fees in execution proceedings.

It is directed that the defendnat no. 2 shall handover vacant possession of the premises in question within two months from today, failing which the plaintiff shall proceed immediately to get the premises.

Dated 22.5.1995                            Sd/- Illegible

                                                       (Vijai singh)

                                Vth Addl. District Judge,  Fatehpur."

                                   

The case of the petitioner- Sri Bhola Singh is that he has been in occupation of a portion of house no. 144 Mohalla  Civil Lines in the city of Fatehpur as a tenant, in independent capacity.

It is claimed by him that he was not a party of aforesaid proceedings in suit filed by Sri Devi Prasad Gupta aagainst the State/Panchayat Raj Officer.  It is further claimed that on coming to know about the  execution proceedings on 27.1.20000, he preferred Original Suit No. 96 of 2000 for injunction before the Civil Judge (J.D.), Fatehpur wherein he was granted interim injunction.

The Panchayat Raj Officer also filed objection no. 38/74/2002 under Order XXI Rule 58 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the aforesaid judgment and decree dated 22.5.1995 stating therein that three tenants were in possession, in the tenanted accommodation, including Panchayat Department and that the landlord had received rent from all the tenants.

It was not the case of the State Government/Panchayat Raj Officer in the suit that there were three tenants in the building. As appears from record, whole of the building was under the tenancy of the District Judge, Fatehpur earliear prior to the allotment to the State Government/Panchayat Raj Officer.  It is not the case of anyone that the District Judge inducted anyone in the portion rather he had vacated whole of the building which was then allotted to the Panchayat Raj Officer who had taken possession of the same.  When were the socalled tenants inducted by the landlord is a question, which has neither been answered by the State Government/Panchayat Raj Officer nor by the petitioner Sri Bhola Singh who claims himself to be an independent tenant.  It is for the first time that the Panchayat Raj Officer in his objection no. 38/74/02 under Order XXI Rule 58 of the Code of Civil Procedure stated that there were three tenants in possession of the building.  It might be that the petitioner was an employee of the Panchayat Raj Department and he was given a portion of the building by the Panchayat Raj Officer to take care of the material/goods lying in that building.

Suit no. 26 of 2005 filed by Sri Bhola Singh, the petitioner, claiming himself to be an independent tenant of the portion of the premises, in dispute, has already been dismissed.  Since the petitioner Sri Bhola singh could not prove himself to be an independent tenant, he was not at all necessary party in the suit filed against the Panchayat Raj Officer/State Government to whom the building was let out on rent after it was vacated by the District Judge, Fatehpur.  What the Panchayat Raj Officer/State Government  and the petitioner who was employee of Panchayat Raj Department intended to do by raising a frivolous objection under Order XXI Rule 58 of the Code of Civil Procedure  that there were three tenants, has rightly been summarized by the Court below holding that they wanted to reopen the decree passed by the Judge, Small Causes Court in S.C. Case No. 3 of 1990 which was not permissible by raising such objection at a later stage. The Additional District Judge Fatehpur in the impugned order dated 13.5.2003 has rightly held that this objection ought to have raised by the petitioner and the State Government/Panchayat Raj Officer in the suit itself and not under Order XXI Rule 58 of the Code of Civil Procedure as the Court cannot go behind the decree to decide such objection which was not taken by them earlier in the suit.  I do not find any error in the aforesaid order passed by the Additional District Judge, Fatehpur that Sri Bhola Singh, the petitioner has wrongly been impleaded as a party in the objection under Order XXI Rule 58 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

Merely because Sri Bhola Singh had married his sons/daughters while he was working in the Panchayat Raj Department at Fatehpur from the aforesaid building, does not prove that he was an independent tenant in the premises in dispute. It is also apparent that the petitioner not only got his name entered in the Assessment Register of Nagar Palika, Fatehpur in collusion with the officials of Nagar Palika, Fatehpur, which was later on cancelled/expunged but also tried to create evidence to show that he was a tenant in the house though he could not have been a tenant for the reasons stated above.

It was alleged in the aforesaid objection that interest was not awarded under the decree but the decree-holder illegally demanded interest; that  Suit No. 96/2000 filed by Sri Bhola Singh, defendant no. 2 (petitioner in the writ petition) claiming himself to be the tenant of a portion of the premises, in dispute, was pending in the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division) Fatehpur and the same was within the knowledge of the decree-holder from the very beginning; that  Sri Bhola Singh was regularly depositing Rs.500/- as rent in Suit No.19/70/2000 but the landlord- decree-holder had not impleaded Sri Bhola Singh as party in the suit, who is tenant of a portion of the house, in dispute, since 1975 and the decre-holder wants to recover double rent and on this ground alone, the decree passed in Small Causes Suit no. 3 of 1990 deserves to be set aside as Sri Bhola Singh who was a necessary party was not impleaded in the suit.

Defendant no. 1 filed objection (paper no. 16-Ga) denying the allegations contained in application, paper no. 4-Ga.

After hearing the parties on the maintenability of of appliation 4-Ga, the objection of the Panchayat Raj Officer was rejected as not maintainable vide order of Additional District Judge, Court No. 5, Fatehpur dated 13.5.2003, contained in Annexure 4 holding that:- :-

" vkosnd jkT; ljdkj dh vksj ls esjs le{k ;g rdZ j[kk x;k fd fMxzhxr lEifRr ij y?kqokn la[;k 3@1990 esa ikfjr fMxzh ds iwoz ls Hkksyk flag ,d va'k ij fdjk;snkj Fkk A bl rF; dks fNikrs gq, nsoh izlkn xqIrk Onkjk y?kqokn ;ksftr fd;k x;k vkSj xyr rjhds ls fMxzh izkIr dh x;h A ;g rdZ Hkh fn;k x;k fd nsoh izlkn Onkjk ;ksftr ,d okn flfly tt ¼ tw0fM0½ ds U;k;ky; esa fopkjk/khu gS vkSj fMxzh /kkjd dks bldk Kku gS A fMxzhnkj Onkjk nksgjk fdjk;k olwy ugha fd;k tk ldrk gS A ;g Hkh dgk x;k gS fd fookfnr okn esa Hkksyk flag vko';d Ik{kdkj Fkk vkSj mls xyr rjhds ls Ik{kdkj ugha cuk;k x;k gS A izfri{kh dzekad&1 dh vksj ls esjs le{k ekuuh; bykgkckn mPp U;k;ky; ds fu.kZ; Jherh Q[k#yfUulkW cuke ftyk tt xksj[kiqj 2002¼ 46½ ,-,y-vkj- 352 dks m)r fd;k x;k vkSj ;g dgk x;k fd ftl fMxzh ds vUrxZr dksbZ lEifRr dqdZ dh x;h gks rc mlh n'kk esa dqdhZ dks pquksrh nsrs gq, flfoy izfdz;k lafgrk ds vkns'k 21 fu;e 58 ds vUrxZr izkFkZuk Ik= iks"k.kh; gSA

izfri{kh dzekad Onkjk 4&x izkFkZuk Ik= ds vfHkdFkuksa dk leFkZu fd;k A

eSa fopkj.k djusa ij ;g ikrk gwW fd fufZ.kZr =`f.k;ksa dh vksj ls izLrqr rdZ ;fn Lohdkj fd;k tk;s rd bldk rkRi;Z gksxk fd y?kqokn la[;k 3@90 esa ikfjr fMxzh dks [kksyk tk;s tks fd fof?k ds vUrzxZr vuqKs; ugha gS A fuf.kZr =`.kh tks vkifRr bl fo"k; esa djuk pkg jgs gSa fd fMxzh ds vUrxZr lEifRr ds ,ad va'k ij Hkksyk flag fdjk;snkj gSa o vkifRr y?kaqokn ds lquokbZ ds le; dh tkuh pkfg, Fkh vkSj ;fn ugha dh xbZ vFkok ;fn dh xbZ vkSj y?kqokn U;k;ky; Onkjk vLohdkj dj nh xbZ rc ,slh ifjfLFkfr esa eSa bl Li"V /kkj.kk dk gwW fd fuf.kZr =`f.k;ksa dk nwljh voLFkk esa fodYi y?kqokn vf/kfu;e ds vUrxZr fujh{k.k ;ksftr djuk Fkk vkSj fd mUgsa fuLiknu ds le; fMxzh ds ihNs tkus dh NwV ugha gS A  eSa ;g Hkh ikrk gwW fd fuf.kZr =`f.k;ksa dh vksj ls xyr rjhds ls Hkksyk flag dks izfri{kh dzekad 2 flfoy izfdz;k lafgrk ds vkns'k 21 fu;e 58 ds izkFkZuk Ik= esa cuk;k x;k gS A eSa ;g Hkh ikrk gwW fd flfoy izfdz;k lafgrk ds vkns'k 21 fu;e 58 ds fuLiknu okn esa dqdhz ds fo#) gh vkifRr izLrqr dh tk ldrk gS A tSlk fd ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; Onkjk Jherh Q][k#fulka cys mij m)`r okn esa vok/kkfjr fd;k x;k gS A bl izdkj ls fopkj.k djusa ij eSa ;g Hkh ikrk gwwW fd 4&x izkFkZuki= fof/kd rkSj viks"k.kh; gS vkSj mls lquokbZ ds fy, Lohdkj ugha fd;k tk ldrk gS A

vkns'k

4&x izkFkZuk Ik= fujLr fd;k tkrk gS A

fnukad 13-5-03                             g0 vLi"V

                                        ¼v'kskd dqekj½

                                               vij ftyk tt]dksVZ la05

                                            Qrsgiqj"  

The petitioner filed objection under Order XXI Rules 97,99,101 and 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure in suit no. 3 of 1990 alleging that he has been residing in the premises, in dispute, as a tenant since 1975 along with his children and daughter-in-laws and that his children were married from the said house which is proof os his being a tenant;  that Sri Vijaibhan Singh, Advocate,  resides at Kanpur  and that he never issued any receipt in token of acceptance of rent; that he used to come from Kanpur to receive rent; that he was informed by late Sri Devi Prasad Gupta some time ago that he had purchased the house, in dispute, together with the tenanted portion in possession of Panchyat Raj Officer and Sri Mata Prasad.  It was also alleged that late Sri Devi Prasad Gupta enhanced the rent of the portion of tenanted accommodation of the petitioner to Rs. 300/- per month and later on to Rs.500/- per month. The petitioner had already paid rent of the accommodation under his tetancy up to December, 1999 to late Sri Devi Prasad Gupta, who also did not issue any receipt therefor; that the deceased landlord was insisting the petitioner to vacate the tenanted portion and when he went with the rent for January, 2000/- to the deceased landlord, he refised to accept the same. He was, therefore, compelled to deposit the same under Section 30(1) of U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972 before Civil Judge (J.D), Fatehpur in suit no. 19/70 of 20000 and since then he has been depositing the rent regularly in Court.

  The petitioner further alleged that the execution of the decree decree has been initiated on 22.5.1995 and as the petitioner was not a party in the suit, he was not liable to be evicted in the said execution proceedings on the basis of a fictitious report prepared in connivance with the Commissioner;  that he was not a tenant in part of the accommodation in dispute, that Sri Mahendra Singh Yadav, the erstwhile landlord had never evicted the petitioner from the house, in dispute, wherein the petitioner has been in occupation, as tenant since long as such, the entire report submitted by the Commissioner is fabricated and artificial.

        He also asserted that his name has been recorded as tenant in the Assessment Register maintained by the Nagar Palika, Fatehpur and that he has been receiving house rent allowance from the State Government and    prayed that in the circumstance the execution proceedings be not continued against him for satisfaction of the decree.

The landlord filed reply to the aforesaid objection stating therein that the house, in dispute, is recorded in the Nagar Palika, Fatehpur as House no. 144 (old no.) which was residential accommodation of District Judge Fatehpur.  After construction of Civil Courts, Fatehpur, the house, in dispute was allotted to District Panchayat Raj Officer on monthly rent of Rs.100.75P which was paid by the Panchayat Raj Officer and receipts were issued to him.

It was alleged that as regards the plea of Sri Bhola Singh that he has been residing in a portion of the house, in dispute since 1975 as an independent tenant, is concerned, it is absolutely false and further the map produced by Sri Bhola Singh showing accommodation under his tenancy did not disclose the correct picture. It was also alleged in the reply by  the landlord that the entire house was one unit being house no. 144. whose present house number is 445/842; that Suit no. 3 of 1990 was instituted for eviction of tenant from the entire house no. 144 (old) and in pursuance of decree passed in the said suit, execution case no. 1 of 1996 was initiated and in the said execution proceeding, the landlord could not be delivered possession of the entire accommodation as Sri Bhola Singh, an employee of the Panchayat Raj Department, who was taking care of the building on its behalf was living in a part of the accommodation in dispute; that he is still  to get possession over four rooms, one small room and a bathroom; that in two of the four rooms, seats of cement latrine, table and iron doors were lying which were sealed by the Adovcate Commissioner on 27.1.2000.

It was specifically alleged that no valid allotment order in favour of Sri Bhola Singh has ever been issued by any competant authority and the house, in dispute, has been allotted to  the Panchayat Raj Office, as a whole as such,  Sri Bhola Singh cannot claim himself to be an independent tenant.  It was also alleged that Sri Bhola Singh neither offerred nor paid any rent separately; that rent was always paid by and on bahalf of Panchayat Raj Officer and that the allegation of Sri Bhola Singh that he was tenant and that the rent was enhanced to Rs.500/- by the landlord was absolutely false; that there does not arise any question of payment of separate rents by Sri Bhola Singh or Sri Mata Prasad in these circumstances.

It was also alleged that Sri Bhola Singh, in connivance with the officials of Nagar Palika Fatehpur, had got his name entered in the Assessment Register as tenant , it has  been cancelled when correct facts were brought before the authorities. It was admitted that Sri Bhola Singh was not made a party in suit no. 3 of 1990.

Though he was not required to be made a party as he was not a tenant of the building,  Lastly it was alleged that Suit no. 40 of 2000 insituted by Sri Bhola Singh under Section 156/3 Criminal Procedure Code has already been dismissed by Chief Judicial Magistrate Fatehpur and as such, Sri Bhola Singh had no legal right to remain in possession over any portion of the disputed accommodation as he was in possession over the same on behalf of Panchayat Raj Officer.

After considering the case of the parties, the objection filed by the petitioner was rejected by the Additional District Judge Fatehpur vide order dated 29.7.2006 on the ground that petitioner never raised the objection now being raised either before Judge, Small Causes Court and also did not file any application under Order IX Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure in this regard.

Aggrieved, the petitioner has invoked the writ jurisdiction by means of the instant writ petition.

The only contention of counsel for the petitioner is that though the petitioner (now retired) was an employee of the Panchayat Raj Department and he received house rent allowance, he is in occupation of part of the house, in dispute, as independent tenant and not as an employee of the Department.  He urged that due to non-joinder of petitioner as necessary party in the suit before the Courts below, he cannot be evicted in pursuance of the impugned judgment and decree which has been passed against the State Government/Panchayat Raj Officer Fatehpur.

        From the perusal of record, it is evident that the petitioner has never occupied the part of the house, in dispute, as an independent tenant and the same is in his illegal occupation at present.  He got his name entered as tenant in the Assessment Register of the Nagar Palika, Fatehpur in collusion with some Municipal employee/officials and that the entry was deleted after hearing the parties, when this fact was brought to their notice. At present, his name does not figure in the Assessment Register of the Nagar Palika, Fathrpur.  

No person can claim tenancy in a building which is covered by the provisions of U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972 for allotment unless and until he is allotted the accommodation in dispute.  In absence of any allotment order the tenancy is illegal as there is prohibition of letting without allotment order under Section 11 of U.P.Act no. XIII of 1972.

Even in a case where there is agreement between the landlord and tenant of letting of accommodation of a building in contravention of provisions of U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972, it has been held to be void in Nootan Kumar V. A.D.J. Banda- 1993 SC &F.B.R.C-334.  To the same effect is the judgment rendered in Lal Chand V. District Judge, Faizabad-1994 ARC-314.

Section 11 of U.P.Act no. XIII of 1972 imposes prohibition/restriction against letting out of accommodation without allotment order and Section 13 of the aforesaid Act places prohibition/restriction of occupationof such building without allotment order. Therefore, a conjoint reading of Sections 11 and 13 of U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972 reveals that they impose prohibition/restriction on letting or occupation of a building without an order of allotment.  It is not the case of the petitioner that the building was let out to him by the landlord on an order of allotment nor is his case that he was ever allotted the building after it was vacated by the District Judge when it was in fact allotted to the State Government/Panchayat Raj Officer. Hence, it can be safely concluded that the petitioner is in illegal possessionof the house in dispute or the Panchayat Raj Officer has illegally sub let the building and put him in possession.

In view of the fact that the petitioner was an employee of Panchayat Raj Department, he is liable to vacate the building when order for eviction has been passed against the tenant- State Government/Panchayat Raj Officer.  This is in consonance with the judgments rendered in Hakim Safdar Khan V. P.A. Rampur-A.R.C 1988(1)-246; Ubebur Rahman Vs. D.J. Saharanpur -A.R.C 1986(1)-364; Vishnua Kant Sharma V. P.A -A.R.C 1983 (2)-19;  Syed Asadullah Kazmi V. A.D.J. allahabad- A.R.C-1981 S.C-543 and Lala Prasad Jaiswal v. P.A. Allahabad -A.R.C 1996(1)-353.

The petitioner could not establish his case before the Courts below in the objections that he was a bona fide tenant and was in legal occupation of the portion of house no. 144 (old).  It is apparent from the record that whole of the house in dispute was earlier allotted to the District Judge, Fatehpur and thereafter to the State Government/Panchayat Raj Officer. There is no allotment order in favour of the petitioner.  The petitioner did not even file any rent receipts issued either by the erstwhile landlord or by Sri Devi Prasad Gupta, who had subsequently purchased the house in dispute in support of his case before the Courts below. There is no supporting evidence by the petitioner before the Courts below as to how and when he became the tenant of a portion of the building. The findings of facts recorded by the Courts below are apt and correct and no illegality or infirmity has been pointed out warranting interference in writ jurisdiction.

The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. The petitioner shall vacate the house, in dispute, and handover peaceful possssion to the landlord within a period of one month from today failing which he shall be evicted by coercive process, in accordance with law, with the aid of local police. No order as to costs.

Dated 18.12.2006

kkb


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.