Reserved on:08.08.2025 Delivered on:20.08.2025

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND

AT NAINITAL

Writ Petition (M/S) No.1226 of 2018

U.P. Provincial Paliwal Brahmin Association ......Petitioner

Vs.

Sanjay Agarwal …..Respondent

Presence

Mr. Pankaj Miglani, learned Counsel for the Petitioner.

Mr. Nikhil Singhal, learned Counsel, for the Respondent. .

Hon’ble Ashish Naithani, J.

1. The present writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of

India has been filed by the Petitioner, U.P. Provincial Paliwal Brahmin Association, Haridwar, through its Secretary, challenging the judgment and order dated 31.03.2018 passed by the learned Third Additional District Judge, Haridwar in SCC Revision No. 09 of 2017, whereby the revision preferred by the Respondent was allowed. The judgment and decree dated 23.08.2017, passed in SCC Suit No. 28 of 1997, was set

aside.

2. The Petitioner is a society registered under the Societies

Registration Act, 1860. According to the Petitioner, it is engaged in public religious and charitable activities, including running “Brahmachari Ramkrishan Sanskrit College” and “Paliwal Dharamshala” at Upper Road, Haridwar. The property in question is a

west-facing garage situated in the said Dharamshala premises, which was let out to one late Brij Bhushan Lal on a monthly rent of ₹18.75.

3. After the death of Brij Bhushan Lal, his wife and the present Respondent, claiming to be his adopted son, came into possession as legal heirs. The Petitioner claims that by virtue of the 1995 amendment to the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, (hereinafter referred to as Act 13 of 1972) properties of public charitable and religious institutions were exempted from the operation of the Act, and issued a notice dated 11.02.1997 under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act terminating the tenancy.

4. As the premises was not vacated, the Petitioner instituted SCC Suit No. 28 of 1997 before the Judge, Small Causes Court, Haridwar, seeking eviction and mesne profits. The Respondent filed a written statement disputing the nature of the property, denying that it formed part of a Dharamshala, asserting that it was being used as a godown, and contending that the tenancy had not been validly terminated. The Respondent also denied the applicability of the exemption under Act No. 13 of 1972.

5. The trial court, by judgment and order dated 11.05.2004, dismissed the suit holding that the Petitioner had not proved the property to be exempt from the Act as belonging to a public charitable or religious institution. The Petitioner’s SCC Revision No. 4 of 2004 was allowed by the District Judge, Haridwar on 01.12.2006, setting aside the trial court’s judgment and decreeing the suit.

6. The Respondent filed Writ Petition (M/S) No. 105 of 2007 before this Court. By judgment dated 23.02.2017, this Court set aside both the judgments dated 11.05.2004 and 01.12.2006 and remanded the matter to the trial court for fresh consideration, granting liberty to both parties to lead additional evidence.

7. Upon remand, the trial court, by judgment and decree dated

23.08.2017, decreed the suit, directing the Respondent to vacate the premises and to pay mesne profits at ₹1,875 per month from the date of the suit till delivery of possession.

8. The Respondent preferred SCC Revision No. 09 of 2017 before the learned Third Additional District Judge, Haridwar. By judgment dated 31.03.2018, the revision was allowed, the trial court’s judgment dated 23.08.2017 was set aside, and the suit was dismissed on the finding that the Petitioner had failed to establish that the property was that of a public charitable or religious institution so as to attract exemption under Act No. 13 of 1972.

9. Aggrieved thereby, the present writ petition has been instituted

10. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the learned revisional court erred in law in holding that the property in dispute is not that of a public charitable or religious institution. It was arg