Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
SARAL SRIVASTAVA, J.
Smt. Sudha Agrawal And Anr. – Petitioners
Versus
A.D.J./Special Judge Sc/St Act And Ors. - Respondents
Matters Under Article 227 No. 8924 Of 2016
Decided On : 07-08-2024
(A) Constitution of India - Article 227 - Eviction proceedings - Applicability of Uttar Pradesh Act No.13 of 1972 - The petitioners challenged the Revisional Court's finding that the Act applies to the suit property, asserting that the tenants' prior admission of non-applicability should bind them - The Court held that the burden of proof lies with the petitioners to establish non-applicability, which they failed to do - The principle of estoppel does not apply against a statute. (Paras 10, 11, 12, 18, 28, 31)
(B) Jurisdiction - The question of inherent lack of jurisdiction is a pure question of law, and the principle of estoppel does not apply in such cases. (Paras 18, 28)
Facts of the case:
The petitioners filed S.C.C. Suit No.39 of 2012 for eviction based on non-payment of rent, asserting that the Uttar Pradesh Act No.13 of 1972 does not apply to the suit property, which the tenants contested. The Revisional Court found the Act applicable, leading to the petitioners' challenge.
Findings of Court:
The Court concluded that the petitioners did not discharge their burden of proof regarding the non-applicability of the Act, and the tenants' prior admission did not bind them due to the question of jurisdiction.
Issues: The main issue was whether the principle of estoppel applies against the statutory provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Act No.13 of 1972.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court ruled that the burden of proof lies with the petitioners to establish non-applicability of the Act, and the principle of estoppel does not apply against a statute.
Result: Writ petition dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
(Saral Srivastava, J.)
1. Heard Sri Ashish Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioners, and Sri Arvind Srivastava, learned counsel for the respondents.
2. The petitioners/landlords through the present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India have assailed the judgement and decree dated 23.07.2016 passed by Additional District Judge/Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Jhansi in S.C.C. Revision No.59 of 2014 (Smt. Madhu Agrawal Vs. Jitendra Seth) whereby the Revisional Court has dismissed the S.C.C. Suit No.39 of 2012 against the respondents/tenants.
3. The petitioners/landlords have instituted S.C.C. Suit No.39 of 2012 against the respondents/tenants for eviction in respect of one shop bearing Shop No.46/1 (Old No.39/10/6) (hereinafter referred to as 'suit property') on the ground of default of rent. It is further stated in the plaint that Provisions of Uttar Pradesh Act No.13 of 1972 are not applicable over the suit property. Paragraph no.2 of the plaint which contains the pleading about non-applicability of Provisions of Uttar Pradesh Act No.13 of 1972 is reproduced herein-below:-
4. The respondents/tenants filed a written statement contending inter-alia that Provision of Uttar Pradesh Act No.13 of 1972 is applicable on the suit property, and therefore, the suit before the Small Causes Court is not maintainable.
5. It transpires from the record that the petitioners/landlords had earlier instituted the proceeding under Section 21 (a) of the Uttar Pradesh Act No.13 of 1972 which was registered as P.A. Case No.65 of 2011, in which respondents/tenants filed written statement contending inter alia that the suit property had been constructed after 1985, therefore, the Provision of Uttar Pradesh Act No.13 of 1972 is not applicable on the suit property. Paragraph no.19 of the written statement of the respondents/tenants in P.A. Case No.65 of 2011 is reproduced herein-below:-
6. Since, the respondents/tenants had taken a plea of non-applicability of Uttar Pradesh Act No.13 of 1972 in P.A. Case No.65 of 2011, the petitioners/landlords got the P.A. Case No.65 of 2011 as withdrawn on 05.04.2012. Relevant extract of the order dated 05.04.2012 is reproduced herein-below:-
7. The Trial Court based on pleadings in S.C.C. Suit No.39 of 2012 framed several issues. The Trial Court framed issue No.1 about the applicability of Uttar Pradesh Act No.13 of 1972.
8. Since the petitioners have assailed the finding of the judgement and decree passed by the Revisional Court on the issue of applicability of Provision of Uttar Pradesh Act No.13 of 1972, therefore, the Court is not referring to the other issues in the judgement.
9. The Trial Court on the issue of applicability of Provision of Uttar Pradesh Act No.13 of 1972 returned the finding that since the respondents/tenants have admitted in their written statement in P.A. Case No.65 of 2011 that the Provision of Uttar Pradesh Act No.13 of 1972 is not applicable, therefore, they cannot retract from their admission, and accordingly, the Trial Court held that the Provision of Uttar Pradesh Act No.13 of 1972 is not applicable on the suit property. Accordingly, the Trial Court decreed the suit of the petitioners/landlords by the judgement and decree dated 09.04.2014.
10. Thereafter, the respondents/tenants preferred S.C.C. Revision No.59 of 2014 against the judgement and decree dated 09.04.2014 passed by the Trial Court in S.C.C. Suit No.39 of 2012, which was allowed by the Revisional Court by judgement and decree dated 23.07.2016 on the ground that in the present case, non-applicability of Provision of Uttar Pradesh Act No.13 of 1972 is an issue which goes to the root of the matter, therefore, the question of inherent lack of jurisdiction is involved in the present case, and thus, the principle of estoppel as enshrined in Section 115 of the Evidence Act is not applicable Consequently, the Revisional Court after appreciating the evidence and material on record concluded that the Provision of Uttar
The burden of proof lies with the petitioners to establish the non-applicability of the Uttar Pradesh Act No.13 of 1972, and estoppel does not apply against statutory provisions.
The interpretation of statutory language can be flexible to achieve legislative intent, as seen in the reading of 'and' as 'or' in Section 2(1)(f) of the Uttar Pradesh Act No. 13 of 1972.
A tenant cannot deny the landlord's title once the landlord-tenant relationship is established; the tenant must prove lawful deposit of owed rent, and properties used for charitable purposes are exem....
The failure to consider crucial evidence and make specific findings can render a judgment perverse and warrant its quashing.
Admissions in pleadings regarding the construction date of a building preclude the applicability of the U.P. Urban Buildings Act, leading to lawful eviction of the tenant.
A tenant's vague denial of allegations regarding property age does not meet the burden of proof required to contest eviction under the applicable laws.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
