Inconsistent findings holding rent control Act applicable and tenancy not validly terminated preclude eviction decree outside statutory framework; such jurisdictional errors warrant Article 227 supervisory intervention.

JUDGMENT :

Ashish Naithani, J.

1. The present writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India arises out of proceedings initiated as Khafifa Suit No. 11 of 2011, instituted before the Judge Small Cause Court and Civil Judge (Junior Division), Haridwar, by the Respondents seeking eviction, arrears of rent and damages in respect of premises situated at Khilandi Bai Dharamshala, Bada Bazar, Haridwar.

2. The original defendant, Yashpal Goswami, was admittedly in occupation of the suit premises as a tenant. During the pendency of proceedings, he expired and is now represented through his legal heir, the present Petitioner.

3. The case of the Respondents before the Trial Court was that the suit property belongs to Khilandi Bai Dharamshala, which, according to them, is a public charitable and religious trust. On that basis, it was pleaded that the provisions of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 are not applicable to the suit property.

4. It was alleged that the Petitioner was a tenant at a monthly rent of Rs.15, later claimed to be Rs.45 per month, and that arrears of rent were due for the period from 01.01.1991 to 30.09.2011. A legal notice dated 07.10.2011 was stated to have been issued terminating the tenancy and demanding arrears.

5. The Petitioner contested the suit by filing a written statement denying the existence of any public charitable or religious trust. Reliance was placed upon a Will dated 25.09.1917 executed by Smt. Khilandi Bai, contending that the said Will did not create any trust but merely made arrangements for management of a Dharamshala, with specified persons appointed as joint managers.

6. It was further pleaded that the suit was instituted by the Respondents in their individual capacity, without authority and without impleading all persons designated as managers under the Will, rendering the suit bad for non-joinder of necessary parties.

7. The Petitioner also asserted that rent had been duly paid and deposited, including payment through bank draft and money order, and that no arrears were legally recoverable.

8. Upon trial, the Trial Court framed issues, including issues relating to the applicability of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972, termination of tenancy, arrears of rent and entitlement to eviction.

9. By judgment dated 11.02.2021, the Trial Court recorded findings on certain issues in favour of the Petitioner, including a finding that the suit property was not being used for a public charitable purpose and that the provisions of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 were applicable. Despite such findings, the Trial Court decreed eviction against the Petitioner.

10. Aggrieved, the Petitioner preferred Khafifa Revision No. 04 of 2021 before the Judge Small Cause Court and First Additional District Judge, Haridwar. The Revisional Court, by judgment dated 17.09.2025, dismissed the revision and affirmed the decree of eviction.

11. The present writ petition has been filed assailing both the aforesaid judgments.

12. Learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that the impugned judgments suffer from patent illegality and jurisdictional error. It was argued that once the Trial Court itself held that the provisions of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 are applicable, the Small Cause Court could not have decreed eviction dehors the statutory scheme.

13. It was submitted that the Trial Court returned a categorical finding that the suit property is not governed by any public charitable or religious tru