Back
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Rakesh Tiwari
BOARD OF BASIC EDUCATION U P ALLAHABAD
Versus
VITH ADDL DISTT AND SESSIONS JUDGE KANPUR NAGAR
Decided On : 26 July 2007
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 17697 of 2006
Rent Control - Landlord Tenant Dispute - U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 - Section 21(8), Section 3(g) - The court discussed the definition of landlord under Section 3(g) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 and its interpretation in the context of rent collection by a guardian. The court also considered the res judicata effect of previous judgments on the status of the respondent as a landlord. The judgment emphasized the obligation of the tenant to comply with rent orders and the revisable nature of rent under Section 21(8) of the Act.
Fact of the Case:
The respondent, a minor, inherited a property and filed a suit for eviction and rent recovery against the petitioners. The lower courts dismissed the suit, leading to a civil revision. The petitioners challenged the delay in filing the suit and non-payment of rent.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the respondent, as the inheritor of the property, was the landlord and entitled to receive rent. The court emphasized the obligation of the tenant to comply with rent orders and the revisable nature of rent under Section 21(8) of the Act.
Issues: The issues included the delay in filing the suit, non-payment of rent, and the status of the respondent as the landlord.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the respondent, as the inheritor of the property, was the landlord and entitled to receive rent. The court emphasized the obligation of the tenant to comply with rent orders and the revisable nature of rent under Section 21(8) of the Act.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the petition and directed the tenant to pay the arrears of rent to the landlord.
List has been revised. None has appeared on behalf of the petitioners. The Counsel for the respondents is present. Heard him and perused the record of Civil Revision No. 852 of 2003 which has been tagged for the purpose of hearing of the writ petition.
2. The petitioners have filed this writ petition for the following reliefs :
(1) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 5-7-1997 and 31-7- 1995 (Annexures 1 and 2 to the writ petition) passed by respondent Nos. 1 and 2 respectively.
(2) Issue any other writ order or direction, which this Honble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.
(3) Award the cost of the writ petition to the petitioner.
3. It is submitted that the writ petition has been filed with inordinate delay as the order dated 5-7-1997 is being challenged in the writ petition which has been filed after 9 years, hence the writ petition deserves to be dismissed on the ground of latches itself.
4. Brief facts of the case are that Mohan Singh was the landlord of House No. 119/123-A, Darshan Purva, Bamba Road, Gumti No. 5 Kanpur Nagar of which the Board of Basic Education U. P. Allahabad is tenant in which a Prathmic School, Darshan Purva is being run by the aforesaid Board on monthly rent of Rs. 200/ -.
5. It is alleged that father of the respondent Mohan Singh had executed a will in his favour with the condition that after his death the respondent who is minor will be sole owner and his mother will be guardian but she will have no right to transfer or mortgage in any manner. Mohan Singh died in the year 1968. The name of the respondent was mutated in Nagar Palika record. Since the respondent was minor his mother Smt. Sunder Devi was collecting the rent on his behalf.
6. The respondent filed Rend Case No. 123 of 1994 under Section 21 (8) of U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 against the petitioners which was allowed vide order dated 31-7-1995 enhancing the rent to Rs. 5,288. 46 per month with effect from 25-9-1994.
7. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order dated 31-7-1995 the petitioners filed Rent Appeal No. 163 of 1995 before 8th Additional District Judge, Kanpur Nagar who vide order dated 5-7-1997 reduced the rent from Rs. 5,288. 46 to Rs. 3,750. 00 per month.
8. It is submitted that by order dated 5-7-1997 passed by the 8th Additional District Judge, Kanpur Nagar has attained the finality. The petitioners have not paid the rent w. e. f. 21-1- 1993. The respondent has given a notice terminating the tenancy for eviction and recovery of rent at the rate of Rs. 3,750. 00 per month which was served on the petitioners on 25-2-1998.
9. Then respondent filed JSC Suit No. 37 of 1998, Narain Singh v. Basic Education Board, for eviction and recovery of rent.
10. The petitioners filed their written statements denying the title of the respondent on the ground inter alia that the rent was collected by his mother and the respondent was not landlord on the date of filing of the suit.
11. The Judge Small Causes Court No. 15, Kanpur Nagar vide order dated 5-11-2003 dismissed the suit on the ground that though the respondent was owner of the house but was not landlord on the date of filing of the suit.
12. The civil revision was filed by the respondent against the order dated 5-11-2003 passed by the Additional District Judge/judge Small Causes Court No. 15, Kanpur Nagar on the ground that the Courts below have failed to consider the definition of the landlord given in Section 3 (j) of U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 which include a person to whom its rent is or if the building let out would be payable and include except in clause 9 the agent or attorney of such person and that the revisionist respondent in the writ petition admittedly the sole owner and rent on his behalf was being collected by his mother and as such it cannot be said that the respondent is not owner/landlord of the house.
13. The Counsel for the respondent has relied upon the order of this Court da
AI
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
