1998 Supreme(All) 1406

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
J. C. Gupta, J.
BISHAN CHAND - Appellant
Versus
DISTRICT JUDGE, ALIGARH - Respondents
C. M. W. P. 24637 Of 1991
Decided On : 12/14/1998

Proceedings under Section 12 or Section 16 of the Act are separate proceedings and may go on independently and simultaneously along with suit for eviction filed in civil court.

Headnote:

RENT CONTROL ACT - VACANCY - REGULARISATION OF OCCUPATION - ADVERSE POSSESSION - ESTOPPEL - JURISDICTION - WRIT PETITION - REMAND - SECTION 14 - SECTION 12 - SECTION 16 - SECTION 18 - SECTION 20(2)(E) - U.P. ACT NO. XIII OF 1972: 1. Proceedings under Section 12 or Section 16 of the Act are separate proceedings and may go on independently and simultaneously along with suit for eviction filed in civil court. 2. The pendency of suit filed by the tenant seeking declaration of his title on the strength of adverse possession can proceed unaffected by the order of vacancy and release as in such proceedings the question of title was neither warranted nor there was any occasion to determine the same. 3. An order declaring a person as tenant in an application moved under Section 14 of the Act is without jurisdiction because R.C. and E.O. has no jurisdiction to grant any such declaration and, therefore, the said order cannot stand as an impediment in the way of the plaintiff in prosecuting her suit for eviction filed against the tenant. 4. No tenant can claim benefit of Section 14 of the Act as no unauthorised occupant can claim benefit of Section 14 of the Act. 5. When an order of declaration of vacancy is made after considering the case of the respective parties, the said order is not open to challenge in revision filed under Section 18 of the Act against the order of allotment or release as the case may be. 6. An admission made by a party or his agent in earlier judicial proceedings is binding upon the party in subsequent proceedings and can be relied upon for proving the truth incorporated therein and such an admission has the effect of shifting the onus of proving to the contrary on the party against whom it is produced and in the absence of a satisfactory explanation, it is presumed to be true. 7. A tenant could not claim perfection of title by adverse possession against his landlord.

Fact of the Case:

The dispute relates to House No. 9/49 situated in Ahata Nidhan Singh, Talab Sabir Khan, aligarh, whose previous owner was one Smt. Pratlbha Rani before the said properly was purchased by the petitioners through registered sale deed dated 4.11.1981. Smt. Pratlbha Rani filed S.C.C. Suit No. 876 of 1972 against her tenant Narendra Kumar alleging that the tenant has sub-let the house to Ram Kishore Gupta, the father of respondent No. 3 and husband of respondent No. 4. Ram Kishore Gupta who was impleaded as defendant No. 2 in the said suit filed written statement admitting the ownership of Smt. Pratibha Rani. However, his defence was that the house in question was taken on rent on behalf of joint Hindu family and he being a member of the family also became a tenant of the plaintiff Smt. Pratibha Rani and, therefore, there has been no sub-letting and suit for eviction was liable to be dismissed.

Finding of the Court:

1. The order of the revisional court remanding the case to the R.C. and E.O. Is not sustainable. 2. The view of the learned Judge that on account of pendency of suit for eviction on S.C.C. side, the R.C. and E.O. had no power to order declaration of vacancy is wholly illegal and untenable. 3. The R.C. and E.O. had no power to consider the question of ownership of Smt. Pratibha Rani as it was foreign to its consideration while dealing with the matter of vacancy and release and according to him the only question which the R.C. and E.O. should have considered was as to who was the landlord. 4. The order dated 25.9.1973 of the R.C. and E.O. regularising the occupation of the respondent No. 3 was a non-est order being void ab initio and without jurisdiction and, therefore, should have been ignored from consideration. 5. The revisional court acted beyond its jurisdiction in entering into the question of declaration of vacancy as the matter regarding declaration of vacancy was not open to challenge under Section 18 of the Act as has been held by the Apex Court. 6. The revisional court proceeded on. an absolutely Irrelevant and wrong parameter that unless the order of regularisation made in favour of respondent No. 3 was set aside in the S.C.C. Suit pending between the parties, the R.C. and E.O. had no jurisdiction to declare vacancy, without bearing in mind that under the provisions of the Act, the application moved by respondent No. 3 for making a declaration under Section 14 of the Act regarding regularisation of her occupation was legally not maintainable and the order made in such proceedings was a nullity and non-est and was to be ignored from consideration having no legal sanctity. 7. The revisional court further exceeded its jurisdiction in holding that unless the title of Smt. Pratibha Rani in the aforesaid S.C.C. Suit was established, no release order could have been made in favour of the petitioners by totally ignoring the material which was placed on record in the form of clear admissions made by the predecessor in Interest of the respondents, namely. Ram Kishore Gupta and also of respondent No. 3 herself that Smt. Pratibha Rani was admittedly the owner and landlady of the house in question and the petitioners title could also not be disputed as they are transferee by virtue of a sale deed in their favour. 8. The revisional court further failed to note the legal position that under law, a tenant could not claim perfection of title by adverse possession against his landlord and since the pendency of suit was no impediment in the declaration of vacancy and in releasing the house in question in favour of the petitioners, the remand of the case to the R.C. and E.O. for waiting for the decision of S.C.C. Suit was wholly uncalled for and erroneous in law as the pendency of S.C.C. Suit could not have any effect on the jurisdiction of the R.C. and E.O. In declaring the property in question vacant and subsequently releasing the same in favour of the petitioners.

Issues: None

Ratio Decidendi: 1. Proceedings under Section 12 or Section 16 of the Act are separate proceedings and may go on independently and simultaneously along with suit for eviction filed in civil court. 2. The pendency of suit filed by the tenant seeking declaration of his title on the strength of adverse possession can proceed unaffected by the order of vacancy and release as in such proceedings the question of title was neither warranted nor there was any occasion to determine the same. 3. An order declaring a person as tenant in an application moved under Section 14 of the Act is without jurisdiction because R.C. and E.O. has no jurisdiction to grant any such declaration and, therefore, the said order cannot stand as an impediment in the way of the plaintiff in prosecuting her suit for eviction filed against the tenant. 4. No tenant can claim benefit of Section 14 of the Act as no unauthorised occupant can claim benefit of Section 14 of the Act. 5. When an order of declaration of vacancy is made after considering the case of the respective parties, the said order is not open to challenge in revision filed under Section 18 of the Act against the order of allotment or release as the case may be. 6. An admission made by a party or his agent in earlier judicial proceedings is binding upon the party in subsequent proceedings and can be relied upon for proving the truth incorporated therein and such an admission has the effect of shifting the onus of proving to the contrary on the party against whom it is produced and in the absence of a satisfactory explanation, it is presumed to be true. 7. A tenant could not claim perfection of title by adverse possession against his landlord.

Final Decision: The writ petition is allowed.