2006 Supreme(All) 2728

[20063(8) ADJ 478]
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
BEFORE : RAKESH TIWARI, J.
MOHD. SULTAN AND OTHERS ——Petitioners
Versus
STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS ——Respondents
(Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 43169 of 1999, decided on 6th October, 2006)

Headnote:(A) U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972—Section 21(1)(a)—Release application under—Bona fide need of landlord—Prescribed Authority allowed that application—Appeal against—Dismissed by A.D.J.—Writ petition against—Dismissed by High Court—Also, dismissal of S.L.P. by apex Court—Hence, order of Prescribed Authority had attained finality—Held, petition liable to be dismissed. [Paras 12, 13, 14, 110 and 125]

       (B) Adverse possession—Applicants-tenants’ possession was permissive—Could not claim title, on basis of adverse possession, unless they show specific overt act, and assertions, on their part that they disclaim title of true owner—It was necessary to prove by overt act showing hostility, as against claimants, or by denouncing his title openly. [Para 109]

       (C) U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972—Sections 23, 35 and 21(1)(a)—Limitation Act, 1963—Sections 4, 5, 22, 2(J), 3 and Entry 67—Release application—Bona fide need—Allowed by Prescribed Authority—Plea of petitioners-tenant that as limitation of 12 years since determination of tenancy has expired, right of landlord to recover possession from tenant expired under Section 2 (J) and Section 3 read with Schedule V, Part V, Entry 67 of Limitation Act, 1963—Held, provisions of Limitation Act not applicable—It was apparent that only Sections 5 and 22 of Limitation Act were only applicable to U.P. Rent Act, and not any other provisions of Limitation Act. [Paras 46, 109 and 110]

       (D) U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972—Sections 23, 22, 18 and 10—Limitation Act, 1963—Sections 4, 5 and, 12—Scope of sections—Section 23 of Rent Act, did not provide any limitation for enforcement of eviction order—In Scheme of U.P. Rent Act, specific period of limitation were prescribed where Legislature thought it prudent to provide limitation, such as, Sections 10, 18 and 22 of U.P. Rent Act, 1972, for filing appeals and revision—Since under Section 35 of U.P. Rent Act, only three Sections of Limitation Act, 1963, viz., Sections 4, 5 and 12 have been made applicable, other provisions of Limitation Act, would not apply—Provisions akin to Section 23 of U.P. Rent Act, was also contained in Section 5 of Mamlatdars’ Courts Act, 1906. [Para 111]

       (E) Limitation Act, 1963—Sections 2(j), 3, 4, 5 and 12—U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972—Sections 23 and 21(1)(a)—Entry 67 of Limitation Act, on perusal shows that a period of 12 years of limitation was provided to landlord where possession was to be taken by him from tenants—Plea of petitioners-tenants that right of landlord to recover possession from tenants expired under Sections 2(j), Section 3 read with Schedule V, Part V, Entry 67 of Limitation Act, was incorrect—Sections 2(j), 3 and Articles 67 showed that period of limitation was prescribed for taking possession from tenant and not from licensees—As petitioners have based their claims on ground of adverse possession and in alternate licensees of erstwhile tenant and after his departure licensees of subsequent tenants—Further, only Sections 4, 5 and 12 of Limitation Act have made applicable to provisions of U.P. Rent Act, 1947—However, even assuming that Limitation Act applies, then too, application filed by landlord under Section 23 of U.P. Rent Act, for enforcement of eviction order was well within time. [Paras 117, 118, 119 and 120]

       (F) Eviction order—Enforcement of—Limitation for—Where there was statutory Rules, operating in field, implied power of exercise of right within reasonable limitation, did not arise, and where there was statutory rule operating in field, implied power of exercise of right within reasonable limitation, did not arise. [Para 120]

       (G) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908—Sections 35-A and 35-B—Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952—Rules 9 and 11—U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972—Section 21(1)(a)—Release of building—Bona fide need—Litigation went upto apex Court—Tenants lost case—Directed to be evicted—Tenants prolonged litigation unnecessary—And filed false, vexatious, claims, or defences, etc.—Court imposed costs on petitioners-tenants—While awarding interest on a party by non-payment of principal amount, or any dues—To be considered by Court, and not only interest, but penal interest, may also be awarded—Held, petition dismissed, with costs of Rs. 10,000/- to be deposited by petitioners, before J.S.C.C. Court—As petitioners have stalled execution proceedings, costs of Rs. 30,000/- was imposed on petitioners. [Paras 130, 131, 132 and 133]