Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
NAVIN SINHA, B.R. GAVAI, JJ.
MOHD. INAM – APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
SANJAY KUMAR SINGHAL & ORS. – RESPONDENT(S)
CIVIL APPEAL NO._2697 OF 2020 [Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 20133 OF 2018]
Decided On : 26-06-2020
(A) Rent and Eviction – Sub-letting by appellant-tenant – High Court has patently erred in holding, that revision entertained by District Judge against vacancy order along with final order of release was not tenable – Judge has totally erred in observing that order of High Court dismissing writ petition had attained finality since it was not challenged before this Court – Judge ought to have taken into consideration that though vacancy order was challenged in a writ petition, High Court, while dismissing writ petition had reserved right of petitioners (appellant and proforma respondent No.3 herein) before it to challenge vacancy order along with final order passed under Section 16 – Observation of Judge that High Court in its earlier order could not have granted liberty to challenge vacancy order along with final order is also contrary to settled principles of judicial propriety. [Section 16(1)(b) of U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972] (Para 16)
(B) U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 – Section 18 – Eviction – Sub-letting by appellant-tenant – Earlier right of appeal which was provided under Section 18 had been substituted by a remedy of revision with limited grounds of interference – One of grounds available is that District Magistrate had acted in exercise of his jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity – Though scope of revisional powers of High Court was very limited one, but even so in examining legality or propriety of proceedings before Rent Controller, High Court could examine facts available in order, to find out whether he had correctly or on a firm legal basis approached matters on record to decide the case – Pure findings of fact may not be open to be interfered with, but in a given case, if finding of fact is given on a wrong premise of law, it would be open to revisional court to interfere with the same – Revisional power does not entitle High Court to interfere with finding of fact recorded by first appellate court/first appellate authority because on reappreciation of evidence, its view is different from court/authority below – Consideration or examination of evidence is confined to find out as to whether the finding of facts recorded by court/authority below is according to law and does not suffer from any error of law. (Paras 19, 21, 23 and 24)
(c) Constitution of India – Article 227 – Eviction – Sub-letting by appellant-tenant – Original tenant was residing in tenanted premises along with his son, brother’s son and their families – As such, inspection report clearly established that no person who was not a member of tenant’s family was allowed to occupy premises in his own right – As such, finding of Rent Controller and Eviction Officer that landlord had proved case under clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 12 of U.P. Act, 1972 was totally contrary to law – Single judge of High Court has also erred in interfering with well-reasoned order passed by District Judge while exercising jurisdiction of High Court under Article 227 of Constitution of India – In guise of exercising jurisdiction under Article 227 of Constitution of India, High Court cannot convert itself into a court of appeal – Exercise of jurisdiction by High Court under Article 227 in present case was patently unwarranted and unjustified – Order of High Court quashed and set aside. [U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 – Section 12] (Paras 29, 31, 32, 33 and 34)
Facts of the case:
Present appeal challenges the judgment and order dated 26.10.2017 passed by the learned single judge of the High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital in Writ Petition No.1074 of 2008 (M/S) thereby, allowing the writ petition filed by the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 – landlords herein.
Findings of Court:
Revisional powers conferred upon the District Judge under the U.P. Act, 1972 are almost analogous with revisional powers of the High Court that have been interpreted by this Court in the aforesaid judgments. We find, that the said principles can be aptly made applicable to revisional powers of the District Judge under the U.P. Act, 1972. If the said principles are applied to the facts of the present case, it could be seen, that the learned District Judge was fully justified in interfering with the order passed by the Rent Controller and Eviction Officer.
Result : Appeal allowed.
JUDGMENT
B.R. GAVAI, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal challenges the judgment and order dated 26.10.2017 passed by the learned single judge of the High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital in Writ Petition No.1074 of 2008 (M/S) thereby, allowing the writ petition filed by the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 – landlords herein.
3. The facts, in brief, necessary for adjudication of the present appeal are thus:
Rashid Ahmed, the father of the present appellant, was the original tenant of House No.61/8, Ground Floor, Green Pasture View, Landhour Bazar, Mussoorie (hereinafter referred to as “the suit premises” or “the premises”) since 1965. The respondents had purchased the suit premises from the original landlord Sudesh Kumar Singhal in the year 1998 and, as such, became the tenant Rashid Ahmed’s landlord from 1998. The respondents – landlord moved an application before the Rent Controller and Eviction Officer, Mussoorie on 10.6.1999, contending therein, that Rashid Ahmed had sublet the property to some other persons who were not the family members of the tenant. As such, they prayed for declaration of vacancy under the provisions of Section 16(1)(b) of U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as “U.P. Act, 1972” or “the Act”).
On the application of the landlord, a Rent Control Inspector was appointed to inspect the suit premises. The Rent Control Inspector visited the suit premises and submitted his report on 16.08.1999. In the report, it was stated, that Rashid Ahmed, who was the tenant, was not present in the premises at the time of the inspection and he was informed by the occupants that he had gone to his village Bhatpura in Saharanpur District. The report further stated, that Rashid and Akbar were sons of Hasunuddin and, as such, real brothers. The report stated that, there were several persons residing in the premises and they comprised of four separate families, namely, (1) Rashid Ahmed; (2) Inam s/o Rashid Ahmed along with his six children; (3) Shabbir Ahmed, wife Shafikan and daughter; and (4) Ayyub and his children Naseem and Nashima respectively.
The original tenant Rashid Ahmed filed objections to the inspection report stating therein, that he and his brother and their families are living in the premises as tenant. He further stated, that tenancy was in his name and there was no other person who was outside his family residing in the said premises. He, therefore, resisted declaring the suit premises as vacant.
During the pendency of the proceedings, the house owner informed the competent authority that, on 19.1.2000 Rashid Ahmed died in his village Bhatpura leaving behind his son Mohd. Inam, the present appellant, as his legal heir. As such, the name of Rashid Ahmed came to be substituted with that of the present appellant. The present appellant filed his application stating therein, that he along with other family members of late Rashid Ahmed was residing in the said premises.
The Rent Control and Eviction Officer came to the conclusion that the persons, who were presently residing in the premises had not produced any evidence to prove, that they were living as tenants since 1965 along with late Rashid Ahmed. As such, he came to the conclusion, that the tenants had allowed persons to reside in the premises, who are not members of the family and, as such, declared the suit premises as vacant vide order dated 4.6.2003.
Being aggrieved thereby, the present appellant along with his cousin Shabbir Ahmed filed Writ Petition before the High Court of Uttaranchal at Nainital being Writ Petition No. 7 (MS) of 2003. The High Court vide order dated 23.8.2006 by referring to the judgment of this Court in the case of Achal Misra vs. Rama Shanker Singh and others, (2005) 5 SCC 531 granted liberty to the petitioners therein to challenge the order dated 4.6.2003 after the final order i.e. order of release/allotment was passed under Section 16 of the U.P. Act, 1972.
The Rent Controller and E
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
