The court affirmed that findings of legal character regarding institutions must adhere to established court rulings and cannot be ignored in summary proceedings.

JUDGMENT :

Ashish Naithani, J.

1. These two writ petitions, arising out of connected Small Cause Court proceedings between the same parties and involving substantially identical questions of law and fact, are being decided together. Both petitions challenge the judgments and decrees passed by the trial court in separate SCC suits relating to the Petitioners’ tenancy over small shop premises at Kankhal, Haridwar, as well as the dismissal of the corresponding revisions by the learned II Additional District Judge, Haridwar, by orders dated 01.09.2023.

2. Since the core issue in both matters concerns the applicability of Section 2(1)(bb) of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 and the effect of an earlier adjudication dated 01.12.2014 determining the Respondent-ashram’s legal character, a common judgment is warranted.

3. In WPMS 3627 of 2023, the challenge is to the decree dated 20.12.2018 in S.C.C. Suit No. 8 of 2015, affirmed on 01.09.2023 in S.C.C. Revision No. 3 of 2019 by the II Additional District Judge, Haridwar.

4. In WPMS 3634 of 2023, the challenge is to the decree dated 20.12.2018 in S.C.C. Suit No. 20 of 2014, affirmed on 01.09.2023 in S.C.C. Revision No. 2 of 2019 by the II Additional District Judge, Haridwar.

5. Both the writ petitions arise out of substantially similar facts, involve common questions of law, and pertain to the same Respondent-ashram. Hence, they are being decided together by this common judgment.

6. The dispute in both petitions pertains to eviction proceedings initiated by the Respondent, Shri 108 Pujyapad Advet Panch Parmeshwar Panchayati Akhara Naya Udasin Kankhal, against the Petitioners Gopal Krishna Jha and Abhishek Jha, who are tenants of small commercial shops situated at Kankhal, District Haridwar. The eviction suits were decreed in favour of the Respondent, and the subsequent revisions preferred by the Petitioners were dismissed, giving rise to the present proceedings.

7. The facts, as emerge from the record, are that the Respondent-ashram filed two separate suits, namely S.C.C. Suit No. 8 of 2015 and S.C.C. Suit No. 20 of 2014, before the Judge, Small Causes Court, Haridwar, seeking eviction of the Petitioners from the respective tenanted premises and recovery of arrears of rent and mesne profits.

8. The Respondent-ashram asserted that it was the owner and landlord of the suit properties and that the Petitioners were tenants therein on monthly rents of RS. 600/- and RS. 175/- respectively. It was further contended that the Respondent was a religious and charitable institution, duly registered, and was therefore exempted from the operation of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”), by virtue of Section 2(1)(bb) thereof.

9. The Petitioners contested the suits, denying the alleged exemption and asserting that the Respondent was merely a registered society under the Societies Registration Act, 1860, and not a charitable or religious institution within the meaning of the Act. It was further stated that they were lawful tenants, regularly paying rent, and that they were entitled to the benefit of Section 20(4) of the Act, having deposited the rent before the court on the first date of hearing.

10. It appears that prior to the filing of the aforesaid suits, one Misc. Suit No. 62 of 2014 ( Abhishek Jha and another v. Shri 108 Pujyapad Advet Panch Parmeshwar Panchayati Akhara Naya