High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Ram Autar v. Kishan Chand And Anothers - WRIT - A No. 3163 of 1986  RD-AH 1142 (17 January 2006)
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.3163 of 1986
Ram Autar Vs. Kishan Chand and others
This writ petition arises out of eviction/release proceedings initiated by respondent no.1 Kishan Chand against petitioner - Ram Autar under Section 21 of U.P. Act No.13 of 1992 in the form of P.A. case no.13 of 1982 on the file of Prescribed authority/Munsif, Hawali, Meerut. In the release application respondent no.1 alleged that he was owner landlord and petitioner was his tenant. Petitioner filed written statement/objection out rightly denying ownership/landlordship of respondent no.1. Petitioner further asserted that his father Chunni Lal and his brother Sri Ram Bansal (now deceased) were owners in possession of the house in dispute. As petitioner neither admitted ownership and landlordship of respondent no.1 nor his status as tenant hence he did not say anything regarding bonafide need and comparative hardship. Prescribed authority allowed the release application on 16.11.1982. Appeal filed against the said order being Misc. Appeal No.399 of 1982 was also dismissed by IX A.D.J., Meerut on 6.2.1986 hence this writ petition.
There is no dispute that one Gulzari was common ancestor of both the parties. It appears that dispute in between the parties relate back to 19th Century when within a short interval of about three months two sale deeds were executed in the year 1879 one by Ram Das ancestor of respondent no.1 in favour of Narain Das ancestor of petitioner and other by Narain Das in favour of Ram Das. Some will of 1.2.1916 also appears to be a bone of contention in between the parties.
In my opinion the dispute between the parties can finally be decided only in a regular suit. It has been held by the Supreme Court in Shamim Akhtar Vs. Iqbal Ahmad A.I.R. 2001 S.C. 1 that question of ownership and landlordship can only incidentally be seen by Rent Control Authorities (JSCC in the said case) and final decision thereupon shall be left to be taken by the regular civil court.
"The question of title of the plaintiff to the said house could be considered by the Small Causes Court in the proceedings as in incidental question and final determination of the tile could be left for decision of the Competent Court."
Learned counsel for respondent no.1 contends that petitioner neither claimed tenancy nor possession in the property in dispute and it was only a sort of vicarious right which was asserted by him. However, learned counsel for the petitioner does not admit this interpretation of petitioner's case.
In my opinion it is a fit case where formal decision of ownership/landlordship shall be left to the regular civil court.
Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to file regular suit on the basis of title and possession. If such a suit is filed it shall be decided on the basis of evidence brought on record therein without taking into consideration any finding recorded in the orders challenged in this writ petition by the prescribed authority and appellate court. In the said suit application for temporary injunction may also be filed. It has been stated that O.S. No.97 of 2005 has been instituted by heirs of Sri Ram Bansal real uncle of petitioner. Petitioner is stated to be proforma respondent in the said suit. If fresh suit is filed by the petitioner then the same shall be consolidated with O.S. No.97 of 2005 already pending.
For a period of six months no execution in pursuance of impugned orders shall take place.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.