Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2024 Supreme(All) 2065

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
SARAL SRIVASTAVA, J.
Bhanu Kumar - Appellant
Versus
Dilip Kumar - Respondent
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 11691 of 2022
Decided on : 02-08-2024

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : Nikhil Kumar, Prashant Kanha and Subhanshu
For the Respondent: Prakhar Tandon and Satyam Pandey

The court held that the Rent Control and Eviction Officer lacked jurisdiction to declare the property vacant as no landlord-tenant relationship existed between the parties.

Headnote:(A) Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 - Sections 2A(1), 12, and 16 - Writ petition challenging orders declaring vacancy and releasing property - The petitioner claims ownership through a will dated 5.11.2008, while the respondent claims through a will dated 27.10.2005 - The court found that neither party established a landlord-tenant relationship, thus Section 12 could not apply - The orders of the Rent Control and Eviction Officer were set aside as without jurisdiction. (Paras 9, 21, 25, and 26)

(B) Jurisdiction of Rent Control Authorities - The authority cannot declare a property vacant unless the conditions of Section 12 are met, which were not satisfied in this case. (Paras 20, 25)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner and respondent are brothers claiming ownership of the same property based on different wills executed by their deceased father. The respondent claimed the petitioner was a licensee, while the petitioner asserted ownership through a later will.

Findings of Court:
The court determined that the RCEO's orders were without jurisdiction as there was no valid landlord-tenant relationship established between the parties.

Issues: The main issues were the validity of the wills and whether the RCEO had jurisdiction to declare the property vacant under Section 12 of the UP Act No. 13 of 1972.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the RCEO's declaration of vacancy was not sustainable as neither party could be classified as a landlord or tenant under the Act, and the conditions for declaring vacancy were not met.

Result: Writ petition allowed without any order as to cost.

JUDGMENT :

Hon'ble Saral Srivastava, J.-Heard Sri Subhanshu holding brief of Sri Nikhil Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri Prakhar Tandon, learned counsel for the respondent.

2. Sri Prakhar Tandon, learned counsel for the respondent states that the respondent does not propose to file the counter-affidavit and the matter may be heard. Accordingly, this Court proceeds with the hearing of the case.

3. The petitioner by means of the present writ petition has assailed the order dated 9.6.2016 passed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer/Additional District Magistrate (III), Kanpur Nagar in case No. 7 of 2015 (Dilip Kumar v. Bhanu) whereby he has declared vacancy in respect to house No. 107/218, Nehru Nagar, District Kanpur Nagar, consisting of one room, kitchen, common lavatory, common hall, bathroom on the first floor and one room/godown on the ground floor of the said house (hereinafter referred to as 'suit property') in the possession of the petitioner, order dated 26.8.2016 by which the Rent Control and Eviction Officer/Additional District Magistrate (III), Kanpur Nagar has released the suit property, and the order dated 19.10.2022 passed by the Additional District Judge, Court No. 15, Kanpur Nagar whereby he has dismissed the rent revision No. 41 of 2016 preferred by the petitioner against the aforesaid two orders of the Rent Control and Eviction Officer/Additional District Magistrate (III), Kanpur Nagar (hereinafter referred to as 'RCEO') passed on the application of the respondent Dilip Kumar for declaring vacancy in respect of the suit property.

4. An inspection of the suit property was conducted by the Rent Inspector and he found that one Bhanu Kumar petitioner is residing in the suit property. He recorded the statement of Bhanu Kumar who stated that the suit property was owned by his father Jeevat Ram who died on 27.11.2008. Petitioner further stated that he had become the owner of the suit property under the last will dated 5.11.2008 executed by his late father in his favour as earlier two wills dated 6.8.2004 and 27.10.2005 executed by his late father were canceled. The petitioner further stated that he is in possession of the suit property and the suit property is not vacant.

5. The Rent Inspector, thereafter, recorded the statement of the respondent who stated that he became the owner of the suit property under the registered will executed by his father late Jeevat Ram in his favour in October 2005. He further stated that the name of the respondent is recorded in the Nagar Nigam. He further stated that the petitioner is his elder brother and he inducted the petitioner as a licensee in the suit property. After recording the statement of the petitioner as well as the respondent, the case was registered as case No. 7 of 2015 and the notices were issued to the petitioner as well as the respondent.

6. The petitioner in response to the notice of the RCEO reiterated the stand which was taken by him in his statement before the Rent Inspector.

7. The respondent also filed an objection denying that his father had executed any will dated 5.11.2008 as alleged by the petitioner. He further stated that his father had executed a registered will dated 27.10.2005 in his favour and after the death of his father on 27.11.2008, he became the absolute owner of the suit property on the basis of the registered will dated 27.10.2005 and his name has been recorded in the Nagar Nigam after deleting the name of his father by resolution No. 66 dated 18.6.2010 of the Nagar Nigam.

8. The RCEO recorded a finding that the father of the petitioner executed the registered will in October 2005 in favour of the respondent and based upon the said will, the name of the respondent is recorded in Nagar Nigam. Accordingly, the RCEO held the respondent to be the owner of the suit property.

9. He further recorded a finding that the respondent inducted the petitioner as a licensee for a certain period. He further held that in view of Section 2A(1) and