Back
2016 Supreme(All) 3440
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Sunita Agarwal, J.
Ghoorey Lal - Appellant
Versus
Mahesh Prasad Tripathi - Respondent
Writ A No. 19859 of 2016
Decided On : 03-05-2016
For the Petitioner:- Abu Bakht, Pramod Kumar Jain, Advocates.
For the Respondent:- Iqbal Ahmad, Advocate.
The crucial date for determination of the lease between the parties is the date of application/petition, and subsequent events affecting the cause of action in rent control matters should be cautiously considered.
Headnote:
Writ Petition - Landlord Tenant Dispute - Section 21(1)(b) - 1982 ARC 747, Gaya Prasad v. Pradeep Shrivastava AIR 2001 SC 803 : 2001 (1) ARC 352 - The judgment discusses the application of Section 21(1)(b) in a landlord-tenant dispute and the rights of the landlord to execute release orders. It also distinguishes the applicability of previous judgments and emphasizes the crucial date for determination of the lease between the parties.
Fact of the Case:
The landlord filed a release application under Section 21(1)(b) against the tenants, which was allowed. The original tenant did not vacate the accommodation within the specified time, leading to an execution application and objections raised by the petitioner claiming rights through the original tenant.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner, claiming rights through the original tenant, was an unauthorized illegal occupant and had no right to object the execution of release orders. The court directed the Executing Court to issue possession to the landlord.
Issues: The issues revolved around the execution of release orders, objections raised by the petitioner, and the rights of the landlord and the tenant under Section 21(1)(b).
Ratio Decidendi: The crucial date for determination of the lease between the parties is the date of application/petition. The court also emphasized that subsequent events affecting the cause of action in rent control matters should be cautiously considered.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed, and the Executing Court was directed to issue possession to the landlord.
Mrs. Sunita Agarwal,J. –
A copy of the judgment and order dated 25.8.1999 passed in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.3629 of 1982 (Devi Dayal & Ors. v. IIIrd Additional District Judge, Kanpur & Ors.) supplied in the Court today is taken on record.
2. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 8.4.2016 passed in Execution Case No.7/23/2008 (Mahesh Prasad Tripathi v. Ghoorey Lal).
3. The brief facts of the case are that the release application under Section 21(1)(b) was filed by the landlord against his tenants including Sita Ram, the original tenant of the disputed accommodation which was allowed on 31.7.1981. Other tenants including Sita Ram were granted two months time to vacate the house in question. Rent Appeal No.263 of 1981 was dismissed on 5.1.1982 and the release orders were challenged in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.3629 of 1982 (Devi Dayal & Anr. v. IIIrd Additional District Judge, Kanpur & Ors.) which was also dismissed on 25.8.1999.
4. While dismissing the writ petition filed by the tenant, the petitioners therein were directed to vacate the accommodation in question on or before 31.12.1999. It appears that Sita Ram, the original tenant did not vacate the disputed accommodation within the time fixed by this Court. The execution application was filed in the year 2008 against the petitioner herein who is in occupation and claim his right through Sita Ram, the original tenant. Before the Executing Court, objections were taken by the petitioner that the suit property did not belong to the landlord namely Mahesh Prasad Tripathi rather it was a Waqf property.
5. Another objection was taken that through sale deeds dated 24.11.2003 and 3.12.2003 the landlord namely Mahesh Prasad Tripathi had sold the suit property and as such the release order could not be executed.
6. Sri P.K. Jain, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Abu Bakht learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the judgment of this Court in 1982 ARC 747 (Smt. Dhanwanti Devi v. Sri Rama Shankar Prasad & Anr.) to submit that the right to apply for execution can only be exercised by the landlord and his transferee or assignee has no right to apply for execution of the release order.
7. Sri Iqbal Ahmad, learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand submits that the tenant had incurred liability to vacate the disputed accommodation on 31.12.1999. He or any persons claiming under him could not have occupied the disputed accommodation after the said date. The occupation of disputed accommodation by the petitioner is nothing but of an illegal occupant. There was not even a requirement of filing an execution case as the tenant had no right to retain possession after 31.12.1999.
8. Reliance placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner upon Smt. Dhanwanti Devi (Supra) is misplaced.
9. The facts of the case are glaring example of act of grabbing of a house by a tenant who had been evicted after contesting the proceedings. Late Sita Ram, the original tenant had contested up to this Court and lost his case that the building in question was not a dilapidated building and did not require reconstruction. These arguments were repelled by this Court with the observation that the tenant had no option but to vacate the disputed accommodation.
10. Despite a date fixed by this Court for vacation of the accommodation in question, the tenant did not vacate rather the landlord was subjected to long litigation and harassment on the part of tenant. The landlord could not get vacant possession of the premises in question and as such could not reconstruct the building which was found in dilapidated condition by the Prescribed Authority as early as in the year 1981.
11. It appears that on account of this fact the landlord got frustrated and sold his property under constraint. The petitioner who had incurred the liability for eviction in the year 1999 cannot dispute that on account of subsequent event of sale of the disputed premises by the landlord, the relea
