Back
2008 Supreme(All) 2357
2009 (74) ALR 421
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
V.K. SHUKLA, J.
CHANDRA PAL (DEAD)-Appellant
Versus
PRESCRIBED AUTHORITY, ETAH-Respondent
C.M.W.P. No. 15336 of 1989 connected with Civil Misc. Contempt Petition No. 258 of 2007
Decided on : October 20, 2008
Counsel for the Petitioner: R.N. Singh, S.K. Singh, V.K. Singh, M.N. Singh and Mahesh Narain Singh.
Counsel for the Respondents: P.C. Srarma and Himanshu Upadhyay, S.C.
The judgment establishes the limited jurisdiction of the Civil Court in matters related to U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 and emphasizes the necessity for tenants to establish their independent tenancy rights under the Act.
Headnote:
U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 - Tenant Rights - Section 21, Section 23, Section 34, Rule 22 (f), Section 151, C.P.C. - Section 36, Section 37, Section 38 - The judgment discusses the validity of orders passed by the Prescribed Authority, Etah non-suiting the interest of the petitioner qua premises in question. It involves the interpretation and application of various sections and rules under U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972, including the authority of the Prescribed Authority to evict tenants, the protection of actions taken in good faith, finality and presumption of orders, and the Act's overriding effect on the Transfer of Property Act and Civil Procedure Code.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged the validity of orders passed by the Prescribed Authority, Etah, alleging illegal eviction from the premises in question. The petitioner claimed to be a tenant since 1970 and sought restoration of possession based on the alleged collusive proceedings between the landlord and another tenant.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner failed to establish his independent tenancy rights and his claims were discredited by contradictory statements and evidence. The court held that the application for restoration of possession was rejected on merit, and the petitioner's plea of fraud on the court was unsustainable.
Issues: The issues involved the petitioner's tenancy rights, the validity of the eviction, and the authority of the Prescribed Authority to adjudicate on the matter.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the limited jurisdiction of the Civil Court in matters related to the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 and the necessity for the petitioner to establish his independent tenancy rights. The court also highlighted the provisions regarding the protection of actions taken in good faith and the finality and presumption of orders under the Act.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed, and the Contempt Petition was also dismissed as a consequence of the writ petition's dismissal.
V.K. SHUKLA, J
Present writ petition has been filed questioning the validity of the orders dated 20.5.1985, 8.5.1989 and 23.5.1989 passed by the Prescribed Authority, Etah non-suiting the interest of the petitioner qua premises in question.
2. Brief background of the case is that Rajendra Kumar Jain proceeded to file application under section 21 (1) (a) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 against Suraj Prasad mentioning therein that decree of ejectment be passed. In the said proceeding so undertaken, on 19.8.1982 parties to the dispute entered appearance and entered into compromise mentioning there n that building in question is in dilapidated condition and as such same may be demolished and reconstruction may be carried there. Said compromise was entered and decree was passed immediately on the basis of the compromise on 19.8.1982. Said decree in question was not placed for execution and Rajendra Kumar Jain ultl'11ately moved an application for execution being Mise. Application No.2 of 1988 wherein service on respondents was presumed to be sufficient on 30.5.1988. Thereafter Form-D was issued on 8.5.1989 itself and possession was taken from the petitioner by force, it has been alleged by the petitioner. Petitioner claimed that he was occupying shop in question before 1970 as tenant, after eviction of Suraj Prasad, refereed to above. The shop in question was taken on rent by the petitioner at Rs. 12/- per month and he was regularly paying the rent to Smt. Bhodevi Kunwar, mother of respondent No.2. Petitioner has also contended that in the year 1987, he has sensed that eviction was being planned by the landlord, then he filed Original, Suit No. 618 of 1987 in the Court of Munsif, Etah and therein petitioner claims that order of status quo was passed on 30.5.1988. Petitioner has contended that in spite of said injunction being there, on the strength of the order passed in Execution Case No.2 of 1988 he was thrown out from the premises in question 'h1d in this background he moved an application under section 34 read with Rule 22 (f) of U.P. Act No. 13 of i972 read with section 151, C.P.C. on 9.5.1989. Against the application moved 00'9.5.1989, Rajendra Kumar Jain filed an objection on 10.5.1989. In the said case request was made for summoning of the documents of the original Suit No. 618 of 1987, sales tax papers etc. to prima facie prove tenancy right qua the shop in question. Said documents had been summoned. The Prescribed Authority passed order rejecting application moved on behalf of the petitioner. At this juncture present writ petition has been filed questioning the orders dated 23.5.1989 and orders dated 28.4.1989 and 8.5.1989 passed by Prescribed Authority, Etah.
3. Counter affidavit has been filed contending therein that Suraj Prasad was the tenant, who agreed to vacate the premises in question and thereafter, as premises in question was not vacated, then order in question was put to execution and Parwana Dakhal was issued. It has been further stated that go dowry was 100 years old and was in dilapidated condition and as such it was demolished in the year 1989. In respect of application moved on behalf of the petitioner, it has been rightly rejected on merit. It has also been stated that petitioner was tenant in another Kothari which had fallen down in the year 1982, which petitioner had admitted in Original Suit No. 451 of 1971 (Prakash Chand Jain and others v. Rajendra Kumar Jain and others). It has been stated that claim of the petitioner is unsustainable on the face of it and in this background writ petition is liable to be dismissed.
4. Rejoinder affidavit has been filed disputing the averments mentioned in the counter affidavit and copy of the assessment register has been sought to be brought on record to show and substantiate that tenancy was subsisting there.
5. Supplementary affidavit had also been filed bringing on record, copy of the plaint, copy of the written statement, copy of the replica, copy of the reports d
