Back
2021 Supreme(All) 996
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
RAJNISH KUMAR, J.
Ravi Ahuja - Petitioner
Versus
Rajeev Kumar And Another - Respondents
Rent Control No. 33330 of 2019
Decided On : 23-12-2021
For the Petitioner: Mohd. Shakeel.
For the Respondent: P.S. Mehra.
Point of Law: The admission is the best piece of substantive evidence that an opposite party can rely upon, though not conclusive, is decisive of the matter, unless successfully withdrawn or proved erroneous.
Headnote:
Constitution of India - Article 227 - Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting Rent and Eviction) Act 1972 - Sections 12, 16(1)(b) and 21(1)(a) - Tenancy and landlord - Illegally occupied land - Whether covered from sale deed or not, learned trial court allowed release application - Respondents had purchased land in dispute House through registered sale deed from previous owners and landlords - Entire first floor of said house was in occupation of petitioner, as a tenant, since before its purchase by respondents.
Finding of the Court: Court view that doors of justice will be closed for a litigant whose case is based on false or suppression of material facts. Fraud and justice never dwell together. They are opposite to each other. Concealment and suppression of material facts is nothing but a fraud to obtain the order in his favour. It is a settled proposition of law that one who has not come with clean hands is not entitled for any relief. Therefore on this ground itself the petitioner is not entitled for any relief or interference by this Court - It is a settled proposition of law that the admission is the best piece of evidence. Once the petitioner admitted the tenancy, the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is misconceived and not tenable and liable to be rejected. The findings recorded by the prescribed authority and the appellate authority in this regard does not suffer from any illegality or error - Hence, impugned orders have rightly been passed by reasoned and speaking orders after considering pleadings of parties and evidence on record - There is no illegality or error in impugned orders - Petition is misconceived, lacks merit and suffers from material concealment and taking false plea.
Result: Petition dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
1. Heard, Sri Mohd. Shakeel, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri P.S. Mehra,learned counsel for the respondents.
2. The petitioner has approached this Court by means of the present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside judgment and order dated 05.02.2016(Annexure No.2) passed by the Prescribed Authority/II Add. Judge Small Causes Court no.18, Lucknow in P.A. Case No.10/2008(Smt. Shashi Srivastava & Another versus Ravi Ahuja), by means of which the case has been allowed and the judgment and order dated 17.09.2019 (Annexure No.1) passed by Additional District Judge/Special Judge(P.C. Act) No.9, Lucknow in Rent Appeal No.8/2016(Ravi Ahuja versus Rajeev Kumar and another), by means of which the appeal has been dismissed.
3. The brief facts of the case, for adjudication of the present petition, are that the respondents had purchased the land in dispute bearing House No. 289/323 measuring an area of 1000 sq. ft, Moti Nagar, P.S. Naka Hindola, Lucknow through registered sale deed dated 06.07.2000 from the previous owners and landlords, Smt. Sushila Devi, Hanuman Prasad, Satya Narain and Ram Narain. The entire first floor of the said house was in occupation of the petitioner, as a tenant, since before its purchase by the respondents. The respondents had moved an application under Section 21(1)(a) of the Act No.13 of 1972; Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting Rent and Eviction) Act 1972(hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1972) on 19.01.2008 before the prescribed authority seeking release of the first floor of the house in question from the petitioner on the ground of their as well as their family's bonafide need. In the said application, the respondents had categorically averred that the petitioner had illegally occupied two rooms, store and some covered space on the ground floor, which was earlier in the tenancy of Nanku Ram and deemed vacant under provisions of Section 12 of Act of 1972. As such, the applicants had filed an application under 16(1)(b) of the Act of 1972 before the City Magistrate, Rent Control Lucknow.
4. The petitioner had filed a written statement on 24.04.2008 admitting that the respondents were the co-owners and landlords of the house in question and the petitioner was their tenant with respect to the entire first floor of the said house. He had also contended that apart from the first floor, two rooms on the ground floor were also in his tenancy. The averments made in the release application pertaining to bona fide need and comparative hardship were denied. After a long time, the petitioner had filed additional written statement on 24.01.2011, in which inter-alia it was averred by him that as per the sale deed dated 06.07.2000, the respondents had purchased only 350 sq. ft covered area which was situated on the ground floor and since the first floor of the house in question was not purchased by the respondents, the release application on their behest was not maintainable. The respondents filed their replication denying the averments made in the written statement and the additional written statement.
5. After considering the pleadings of the parties and the evidence adduced before it, the prescribed authority allowed the application by means of the judgment and order dated 05.02.2016 and directed to the petitioner to hand over the possession of the property under his tenancy to the respondents. The petitioner had filed an appeal which has been dismissed by means of the judgment and order dated 17.09.2019 by the Additional District Judge. Hence the present petition has been filed.
6. The first issue raised by learned counsel for the petitioner was that the petitioner is not the tenant of the respondents on the ground that the petitioner had filed a suit for permanent injunction, in which the respondents have filed written statement denying the relationship of the landlord and tenant between the petitioner and the respondents. It was vehemently denie
