RAJENDRA KUMAR AGARWAL vs XIth A. D. J. , AGRA

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2006 Supreme(All) 2376

[2006(7) ADJ 326]
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
BEFORE : SANJAY MISRA, J.
RAJENDRA KUMAR AGARWAL AND OTHERS ....Petitioners
Versus
XIth A.D.J., AGRA AND OTHERS .....Respondents
(Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 46642 of 2006, decided on 31st August, 2006)

Advocates:
Counsel :
Sharad Malviya, S.N. Verma, Prakash Gupta and Ashish Gupta for the Petitioners; P.C. Jain, S.C., for the Respondents.

Headnote:(A) U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972—Sections 20(2) 20(4) and 21(1)(a)—Limitation Act, 1963—Section 27 and Article 67—Transfer of Property Act, 1882—Section 106—Notices sent by erstwhile owner of property to respondents 3 to 10 to hand over vacant possession of property—Case of petitioners-tenants that neither any rent was demanded by her, nor they paid rent to that owner, after expiry of lease period—Later, erstwhile owner executed sale-deed in favour of respondents 3 to 10—Suit filed by respondents against petitioners for their eviction and arrears of rent—Plea by petitioners-tenant that after expiry of lease period erstwhile owner had not instituted any proceeding for their eviction, for more than 12 years, and thus, by virtue of provisions of Section 27 and Article 67 of Limitation Act, adverse possession of petitioners has ripened and that suit was time-barred—Dismissal of applications of petitioners by J.S.C.C., as well as dismissal of revision also—Hence, writ petition against—Which was still pending—Thereafter, suit was decided, and decreed for arrears of rent and ejectment against petitioners—Decree of trial Court also was confirmed by Revisional Court—Hence, again writ petition against—Still pending—Subsequently, respondents 3 to 10 filed application under Section 21(1)(a) of Rent Act—Which was allowed by Prescribed Authority—And also dismissal of appeal against, by D.J.—Hence, writ petition against—Held, since provisions of State Rent Act were applicable to property in issue, tenancy stood protected therein, and would not come to an end only by virtue of terms of lease-deed, or by a notice under Section 106 of T.P. Act—Therefore, petitioners being statutory tenants, could not claim benefit of Article 67 of Limitation Act—Therefore, petition liable to be dismissed. [Paras 2, 8 and 9]
(B) Limitation Act, 1963—Section 27 and Article 67—U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972—Sections 20(2), 20(4) and 21(1)(a)—Transfer of Property Act, 1882—Section 106—Civil Procedure Code, 1908—Order VII, Rule 11—Bar of limitation—Suit for arrears of rent and ejectment of tenant—And also release application under Section 21(1)(a)—Question whether it was time barred, i.e., filed after period of 12 years by giving notice under Section 106 of T.P. Act—And question whether tenant became a tenant-at-sufferance, and that no relationship of landlord and tenant existed between parties—Held, since provisions of State Rent Act were applicable to property in issue, tenancy stood protected therein—And would not come to an end only by virtue of lease-deed, or by notice under Section 106—Therefore, petitioners-tenants being statutory tenants, could not claim benefit of bar of Section 27 and Article 67 of Limitation Act—Hence, petition liable to be dismissed. [Paras 6, 8 and 9]

JUDGMENT

Hon’ble Sanjay Misra, J.—Heard Sri S.N.Verma, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Sharad Malviya learned Counsel for the petitioners and Sri P.C. Jain, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents No. 3 to 10. The respondents No. 11 to 19 are alleged to be proforma respondents and therefore, notices need not be sent to them . With the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties, this writ petition is being decided at this stage itself.

2. The petitioners who are tenants seek quashing of the order dated 1.9.1998 passed by the Prescribed Authority / Civil Judge Agra and the judgment and order dated 14.8.2006 passed by the Additional District Judge, Agra whereby the application made by the landlord under Section 21 (1) (a) of U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972) has been allowed. Facts of the case as brought forward are that Smt. Vidyawati Devi was owner of the property bearing No. 6/23 New situate in Gali Barah Bhai Belanganj Agra. The said property was leased out to Sri Gopi Nath predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners and proforma respondents by means of a lease deed dated 14.4.1943 with effect from 1.2.1940 for a period of 30 years . There is no clause for renewal in the lease deed. Sri Gopi Nath died in the year 1945 . The Lease expired on 31.1.1970. The owner namely Smt. Vidyawati Devi sent two registered notices dated 9.3.1970 and 20.3.1970 requiring the respondent Nos. 3 to 10 to hand over vacant possession of the property . It is the case of the petitioners that neither any rent was demanded from them nor they paid any rent to the said Smt. Vidyawati Devi after expiry of the lease period. Smt. Vidyawati Devi is alleged to have executed a sale deed dated 15.6.1982 in favour of respondents No. 3 to 10 wherein possession of the petitioners was recorded. The respondent Nos. 3 to 10 filed a suit No. 110/1988 against petitioners for their eviction and arrears of rent. In the aforesaid suit various pleas were taken by the petitioners to the effect that since after the expiry of the lease on 31.1.1970 the erstwhile owner of the property had not instituted any proceedings for eviction of the petitioners for more than 12 years and thus by virtue of provisions of Section 27 and Article 67 of the Indian Limitation Act, adverse possession of the petitioners had ripened and erstwhile owner Smt. Vidyawati Devi had no title left with her and hence the sale deed dated 15.6.1982 was executed without her having any right or title. The suit was contested by the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners who deposited the amount as required for claiming benefit of Section 20 (4) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972. The petitioners filed two applications, one under Order VII Rule 11, Civil Procedure Code and another application to the effect that suit was time barred. Both the applications were dismissed by the Judge Small Causes Court and the Revisions filed against the aforesaid orders was also dismissed. The petitioners have filed Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 34145 of 1997 against the aforesaid orders which is still pending. Subsequently, the suit proceeded and by the judgment and order dated 28.2.1998 the suit was decreed for arrears of rent and ejectment against the petitioners. The Revisions filed by the petitioners were also decided on 24.2.2002 whereby the judgment and decree of the trial Court was confirmed. The petitioners have filed a Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 17371 of 2000 against the aforesaid judgment and orders wherein an interim order dated 18.4.2000 has been passed by this Court in favour of the petitioners. The writ petition is still pending. During the pendency of the aforesaid proceedings, the respondent Nos. 3 to 10 have made an application under Section 21 (1) (a) of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 before the Prescribed Authority Agra on the ground that the accommodation is needed for their residence. The mat

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2006 Supreme(All) 2376

[2006(7) ADJ 326]ALLAHABAD HIGH COURTBEFORE : SANJAY MISRA, J.RAJENDRA KUMAR AGARWAL AND OTHERS ....PetitionersVersusXIth A.D.J., AGRA AND OTHERS .....Respondents(Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 46642 of 2006, decided on 31st August, 2006)

Cases Referred (3)

[2006(7) ADJ 326]
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
BEFORE : SANJAY MISRA, J.
RAJENDRA KUMAR AGARWAL AND OTHERS ....Petitioners
Versus
XIth A.D.J., AGRA AND OTHERS .....Respondents
(Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 46642 of 2006, decided on 31st August, 2006)