Back
2019 Supreme(All) 2784
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Ajay Bhanot, J.
Savrunisha and Ors.- Appellants
Vs.
Bhola Nath - Respondent
Second Appeal No. 521 of 2016
Decided On : 08-11-2019
For the Appellant : Narendra Kumar Chaturvedi and Vivek Singh Shrinet
For the Respondents: Umesh Chandra Tripathi
Headnote:
Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 – Sections 11, 12, 13, 17 and 21 – Suit for injunction – Whether the plaintiff was the tenant of the premises in dispute – Whether the plaintiff was trespasser over the premises in dispute – Second appeal arises from a judgment and decree passed in Civil Appeal rendered by Appellate Court, allowing the appeal after reversing the judgment and decree, passed by the learned Trial Court in Original Suit Appellate Court dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs-appellants – Trial Court had decreed the suit, by granting an injunction in favour of the plaintiffs-appellants. – Held, Law has thus been settled, that the lawful process of eviction of an unauthorized occupant by a true owner, essentially means grant of an opportunity to the parties to tender their defence, and its adjudication by a Court of law. – Once, the Courts of law have found that the occupant is a trespasser, or a person in unauthorized occupation, against the claim of the lawful owner; such unauthorized occupant does not have any further right to possession over disputed premises. – The said unauthorized occupant has to vacate the premises voluntarily, after the adjudication is entered by the Courts. – Upon failure to do so, the said person is liable to be evicted by execution of the judgment and decree, holding the former to be an unauthorized occupant/trespasser. – Findings of illegal occupation by an unauthorized occupant, against the claim of a true owner, rendered by the Court, operate as the lawful basis for eviction of such illegal occupant through execution proceedings. – No fresh suit for any further adjudication is necessary. – Instant appeal is squarely covered with the law settled in the authorities referenced in the preceding paragraphs. – No substantial questions of law as such arise in the instant second appeal – Counsel for the appellant could not point out any substantial question of law which arises in this appeal. – The questions of law stated in the memo of appeal are all issues of fact, and do not pose any substantial question of law for determination. – Second Appeal Dismissed
JUDGMENT :
Ajay Bhanot, J.
1. The second appeal arises from a judgment and decree dated 11.2.2016 passed in Civil Appeal No. 85 of 2015 (Bhola Nath v. Savrunisha and others), rendered by the learned Appellate Court, allowing the appeal after reversing the judgment and decree dated 30.7.2015, passed by the learned Trial Court in Original Suit No. 718 of 2007 [Mohd. Rafeeq (since deceased) Through L.Rs. v. Bhola Nath], The Appellate Court dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs-appellants. The learned Trial Court had decreed the suit, by granting an injunction in favour of the plaintiffs-appellants.
2. The suit was originally instituted by one Mohd. Rafeeq.
3. The plaintiff had filed a suit for injunction against the defendant-respondent, from interfering in his possession, over the property in dispute.
4. The suit was registered as Original Suit No. 718 of 2007 [Mohd. Rafeeq (since deceased) Through L.Rs. v. Bhola Nath], before the learned Additional Civil Judge, (Junior Division), Court No. 2, Gorakhpur.
5. The plaintiff asserted that he was a tenant of the defendant-respondent in the disputed premises. The defendant respondent was trying to evict him forcibly, by recourse to illegal means. The relief sought in the suit, was to injunct defendant-respondent, from evicting the plaintiffs, except in accordance with law.
6. During the pendency of the suit, the plaintiff, Mohd. Rafeeq, died. The legal heirs/legal representatives of the plaintiff Mohd. Rafeeq (since deceased) were substituted after his death. The litigation was thereafter prosecuted by the legal heirs of the plaintiff Mohd. Rafeeq (since deceased). This appeal has been filed by the legal heirs of the plaintiff, who were substituted as plaintiffs.
7. The defendant-respondent filed a written statement, traversing the claim set up in the plaint. The defence taken in the written statement was fourfold. Firstly, the plaintiff was a habitual defaulter who defaulted in payment of rent, and other dues including water tax. Secondly, the plaintiff had sublet the premises to his brother. Thirdly, the plaintiff was also inducted without an allotment order. The subtenant too was inducted without an allotment order. In any case the tenancy was fixed for 11 months. After expiry of 11 months, the tenancy was not renewed.
8. The Trial Court after exchange of pleadings formulated the following issues for determination:
I. Whether the plaintiff was entitled to an injunction against the defendant to the effect that the plaintiff could not be evicted from shop in dispute except in accordance with process of law?
II. Whether the suit was maintainable? What was the nature of relief to which the plaintiff was entitled to?
III. Whether the plaintiff was a lawful tenant of the premises in dispute?
9. Learned Trial Court found that the plaintiffs-appellants, were the tenants of the defendant-respondent. Since the defendant-respondent had accepted the fact of the tenancy of the plaintiffs-appellants, the plaintiffs-appellants had established their case. The learned Trial Court, accordingly reasoned that the plaintiffs-appellants were entitled to an injunction. The learned Trial Court rendered a judgment and decree dated 30.7.2015, in favour of the plaintiffs-appellants, injuncting the defendant-respondent from dispossessing the plaintiffs-appellants without adopting the procedure as per law.
10. Being aggrieved the defendant-respondent carried the judgment and decree of the learned Trial Court in appeal.
11. The appeal was registered as Civil Appeal No. 85 of 2015 (Bhola Nath v. Savrunisha and others), before the learned Appellate Court. The Appellate Court formulated the following questions for determination.
I. Whether the plaintiff was the tenant of the premises in dispute?
II. Whether the plaintiff was trespasser over the premises in dispute?
12. The Appellate Court found that the plaintiffs-respondents, were inducted into possession, in violation of the procedure prescribed under sections 11, 12, 13, 17
