Back
2015 Supreme(UK) 192
UTTARAKHAND HIGH COURT
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Alok Singh
Writ Petition No. 72 (MS) of 2007
SWAMI BELI RAM UDASIN ASHRAM
KANKHAL & ANR. – Petitioners
Versus
DISTRICT JUDGE & ANR. – Respondents
Decided on : 31.03.2015
For the Respondent No. 2:Mr. Siddharth Sah, Advocate
Headnote:(A) U.P. Rent Act, 1972, Sec. 2(1) — As per Sec. 2(1) any building built and held by a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 shall not be covered by the provisions of the U.P. Rent Act — Since provisions of the U.P. Rent Act are not applicable in the present case — Therefore, tenancy of the defendants-respondent was at will. (Paras 8, 9)
(B) Transfer of Property Act, 1882, Sec. 106 — Tenancy at will can be determined/terminated by issuing notice — In the present case, notice u/s 106, T.P. Act was sent to the defendants-respondent by registered post AD which was served on the defendants-tenant whereupon defendants were informed that their tenancy would stand terminated/determined on expiry of 30 days from the date of service of notice — Therefore, tenancy of the defendants stood terminated on expiry of 30 days from the date of service of notice — Judgment passed by the learned trial court, perfectly valid. (Paras 10 to 13)
(C) Impleadment — Even if, it was presumed that the firm was a partnership firm — Fact remains that there are only two partners of the firm i.e. defendants — Therefore, if both the partners are impleaded in the suit, suit cannot be said to be not maintainable for want of impleadment of partnership firm. (Para 11)
¼v½ mñizñ fdjk;k vf/kfu;e] 1972] /kkjk 2¼1½ & lkslk;Vh iathdj.k vf/kfu;e] 1860 ds vUrxZr iathÑr lkslk;Vh }kjk /kkjk 2¼1½ ds vuqlkj fufeZr Hkou mÙkj izns’k fdjk;k vf/kfu;e ds izko/kkuksa esa vkPNkfnr ugha & pw¡fd mñizñ fdjk;k vf/kfu;e ds izko/kku izLrqr okn esa izk;ksT; ugha Fks blfy, izfrokfn;ksa dh vfHk/k`fr bPNk ls FkhA
¼izLrj 8] 9½
¼c½ lEifÙk gLrkarj.k vf/kfu;e] 1882] /kkjk 106 & bPNk ls vfHk/k`fr dks vf/klwpuk ikfjr dj i;kZoflr fd;k tk ldrk gS & izLrqr okn esa /kkjk 106] lEifÙk varj.k vfèkfu;e ds vUrxZr izfrokfn;ksa dks iathÑr ,-Mh- Mkd ls vf/klwpuk Hksth x;h Fkh fd uksfVl feyus ds 30 fnu ckn mudh vfHk/k`fr lekIr gks tk,xh & bl izdkj izfrokfn;ksa dh vfHkèk`fr uksfVl izkIr gksus ds 30 fnu ckn lekIr gks x;h Fkh & fopkj.k vnkyr }kjk ikfjr fu.kZ; oS/k FkkA ¼izLrj 10 ls 13½
¼l½ vfHk;ksftr djuk & vxj ;g mi/kkfjr Hkh fd;k tk, fd QeZ Hkkxhnkjh QeZ Fkh & rkfF;d fd QeZ esa flQZ nks Hkkxhnkj Fks ;kfu fd izfroknh & blfy, vxj okn esa nksuksa Hkkxhnkjksa dks vfHk;ksftr fd;k tk, rc ;g ugha dgk tk ldrk fd okn iks”k.kh; ugha Fkk] pw¡fd Hkkxhnkjh QeZ dks vfHk;ksftr ugha fd;k tk ldrkA ¼izLrj 11½
Hon’ble Alok Singh, J (Oral)
Present petition is filed assailing the judgment and order dated 30.10.2006 passed by learned District Judge, Haridwar in SCC Revision No. 28 of 2004 whereby Revisional Court was pleased to allow the revision filed by tenant – respondent, herein and was further pleased to dismiss the suit for eviction and recovery of arrears of rent.
2. Brief facts of the present case, inter alia, are that petitioner namely Swami Beli Ram Udasin Ashram, Kankhal, is a registered society registered under the provisions of the Societies Registration Act, of which petitioner no. 2 Mahant Somdas is the Manager; respondent was inducted in the property - shop, in question, as tenant at the rent of Rs. 12.50 per month; plaintiffs / landlord – petitioners, herein, issued one notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (hereinafter referred to as T.P. Act) to the tenant – respondent, herein, on 03.02.1998 vide registered letter AD informing the tenant that their tenancy would stand determined/terminated, on expiry of 30 days from the date of receipt of notice and calling the tenant – respondent, herein, to vacate the property and hand over the peaceful, vacant possession of the property to the landlord plaintiffs – petitioners, herein, after expiry of 30 days from the date of receipt of notice; further calling the tenants to pay arrears of rent to the plaintiffs with effect from 01.07.1997 to 31.01.1998.
3. Undisputedly, notice under Section 106 of the T.P. Act was received by the tenant - respondent on 06.02.1998, however, defendant – tenant failed to hand over the peaceful vacant possession of the property, in question, to the plaintiffs landlord, after expiry of 30 days from the date of receipt of notice and further failed to pay arrears of rent, as demanded by the landlord, therefore, plaintiffs were compelled to file SCC Suit No. 23 of 1998 in the court of JSCC – Civil Judge (JD), Haridwar. In the written statement, defendants – respondent herein, did not deny the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. The only plea taken by the defendants in the written statement was that rent receipts were being issued in favour of M/s Hukam Chand Surendra Kumar – a partnership firm, therefore, firm was tenant and firm had not been impleaded as party in the suit, therefore, suit for eviction against the defendants was not maintainable. It was further stated in the written statement that although, plaintiff no. 1 is a registered Society, however, Society is not doing any religious or charitable work, therefore, could not be said to be a religious or charitable society.
4. Learned trial court vide judgment and decree dated 29.11.2004 was pleased to decree the suit filed by the landlord plaintiffs – petitioners, herein, directing the tenant defendants – respondent, herein, to handover the peaceful, vacant possession of the property, in question, to the landlord plaintiffs – petitioners within 30 days from the date of judgment. Feeling aggrieved, defendants – respondent, herein, preferred SCC Revision under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act before District Judge, Haridwar being SCC Revision No. 28 of 2004, which was allowed by the Revisional Court vide judgment dated 30.10.2006. Feeling aggrieved, landlord petitioners, herein, have approached this Court by way of filing present petition.
5. I have heard Mr. Rajendra Dobhal, learned Sr. Advocate assisted by Mr. Rishik Lakhera and Mr. Pratool Kumar, Advocates for the petitioner and Mr. Siddharath Sah, Advocate for the respondent no. 2 and have carefully perused the record.
6. Tenant respondent, herein, does not dispute that petitioner no. 1 is a society, registered under the provisions of Societies Registration Act.
7. Section 2 of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as “U.P. Rent Act”) reads as under:
“Section 2 - Exemptions from operation of
