Back
2005 Supreme(All) 2656
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
S.U. KHAN, J.
Lalta Prasad (Since Deceased And Survived By Legal Representative) - Appellant
Versus
Ist Additional District Judge, Judge Small Causes Court (Additional Civil Judge) and Dr. Pramod Chandar - Respondent
Civil Miscellaneous Writ Petition No. 7293 of 1986
Decided on : 29-11-2005
For the Appellant : Neeraj Agrawal, R.K. Misra and N.K. Srivastava
For the Respondent: B. Dayal and C.B. Singhal and B. Singhal, S.C.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that previous legal and factual findings may not operate as res judicata, and the court has the authority to remand a suit for a fresh determination based on the evidence presented.
Headnote:
U.P Act No. 13 of 1972 - Eviction Suit - Section 2(2), Section 39, Section 20(4) - The court discussed the applicability of U.P Act No. 13 of 1972 to a building in dispute, the protection of tenants under Section 39, and the consequences of the expiration of the 10-year period from the date of construction. The court also highlighted the binding nature of previous court orders, the legality of interim orders, and the principle of res judicata.
Fact of the Case:
The original landlord filed an eviction suit against the tenant, claiming that the building in dispute was not covered by U.P Act No. 13 of 1972 due to its construction date. The tenant contested, asserting the applicability of the Act and depositing arrears of rent under Section 39. The trial court initially dismissed the suit, but subsequent legal proceedings led to a writ petition by the landlord.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the earlier legal findings and factual determinations did not operate as res judicata, and remanded the suit to the trial court for a fresh decision on the date of construction and the tenant's entitlement to the Act's protection.
Issues: The issues revolved around the applicability of U.P Act No. 13 of 1972, the protection of tenants under Section 39, the binding nature of previous court orders, and the legality of interim orders.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that previous legal and factual findings did not operate as res judicata, and remanded the suit for a fresh determination. It also emphasized the principles related to the legality of interim orders and the applicability of the Act based on the construction date of the building.
Final Decision: The court allowed the writ petition, set aside the previous judgments, and remanded the suit to the trial court for a fresh decision, directing that the trial court should not be influenced by any previous observations.
S.M. KHAN, J.
Lalta Prasad the original landlord petitioner since deceased and survived by legal representatives instituted eviction suit against tenant respondent No. 3, Dr Pramod Jain before JSCC/I Munsif, Bulandshahr in the form of SCC suit No. 13 of 1979. Building in dispute is a garage of which respondent No. 3 is the tenant. In the plaint, it was stated that building in dispute was constructed in the year 1970-71 hence U.P Act No. 13 of 1972 was not applicable thereupon (by virtue of Section 2(2) of the Act, the Act is not applicable for a period of 10 years from the date of construction of a building, if it was constructed prior to April 1985). The tenant filed written statement and denied the allegation of the landlord in respect of date of construction. Tenant asserted that building was more than 10 years on the date of filing of the suit hence U.P Act No. 13 of 1972 was applicable thereupon. During the pendency of suit tenant filed an application on 2.5.1980 to the effect that even if allegation of plaintiff that building was constructed in April 1970 was taken to be correct 10 years period had expired and tenant was entitled to the benefit of Section 39 of U.P Act No. 13 of 1972. According to Section 39 of the Act, if a suit for eviction of tenant was pending on the date of commencement of the said Act then tenant was entitled to the protection of the Act on the condition of depositing the entire arrears of rent. JSCC, Bulandshahr through order dated 15.9.1980, held that the question of benefit of Section 39 of the Act would be decided after evidence was adduced alongwith final decision of the suit. Against order dated 15.9.1980, tenant filed SCC Revision No. 111 of 1980. IV Additional District Judge, Bulandshahr allowed the revision on 20.11.1980 and directed the trial court to decide the tenant’s application in respect of applicability of Section 39 of the Act first and not after final hearing of the suit.
2. After remand the trial court/JSCC, Bulandshahr decided the entire suit on 19.9.1981. Trial court held that the revisional court in its judgment and order dated 20.11.1980 had already decided that U.P Act No. 13 of 1972 was applicable on the building in dispute hence it was no more open to him to decide the said question again and the said order was binding upon the parties. Thereafter trial court held that tenant had complied with the provisions of Section 39 of the Act hence suit was liable to be dismissed as the entire arrears of rent along with interest and cost of the suit had been deposited by the tenant on the first date of hearing and he was entitled to the benefit of Section 20(4) of the Act. The trial court therefore through judgment and decreed dated 19.9.1981, dismissed the suit for eviction and permitted the landlord plaintiff to withdraw the amount deposited by the tenant.
3. Against the said judgment and decree landlord filed SCC Revision No. 77 of 1982. In the revision after judgment was reserved, tenant filed an application seeking amendment in his written statement to the effect that he was entitled to the benefit of Section 39 of the Act. Amendment application was allowed on 5.10.1985. Thereafter revision was dismissed on 18.1.1986 by I A.D.J, Bulandshahr hence this writ petition by the landlord.
4. The revisional court held that the date of construction was 1.4.1970 as from the said date house tax assessment of the building in dispute had been made effective and that in the earlier order of remand of revisional court dated 20.11.1980 also it was held that 1.4.1970 was the date of construction. Revisional court also held that in view of Supreme Court authority reported in Vineet Kumar Vs. Mangal Sain Wadhera, U.P Act No. 13 of 1972 became applicable to a building if 10 years period from its construction expired during the pendency of suit.
5. The said authority of the Supreme Court was later on dissented from, held per incuriam and overruled in several subsequent authorities of the Supr
