Landlords cannot forcibly evict tenants without following due process of law.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND

AT NAINITAL

ON THE 2^ND DAY OF JANUARY, 2023

BEFORE:

HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI

WRIT PETITION (M/S) No. 3015 of 2022

BETWEEN:

Tejendra Singh & another. ...Petitioners

(By Mr. S.K. Posti, Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. Ashutosh Posti,

Advocate for the petitioners)

AND:

Mohd. Anis Ahamd.

...Respondent

(There is no representation for the respondent)

JUDGMENT

This writ petition is directed against the

judgment

dated

26.09.2022

passed

by

learned

Additional District Judge, Khatima, District Udham

Singh Nagar in Misc. Civil Appeal No.55 of 2021 filed by

respondent,

whereby

his

temporary

injunction

application was allowed.

2.

Facts of the case, shorn off unnecessary

details, are as follows:

In the year 1995, respondent was inducted

as tenant in respect of a shop, by its owner Shri Chandi

Prasad. After death of Chandi Prasad, his son Vinod

Prakash became owner of the shop and a fresh lease

deed was executed between him and the respondent.

Now, the shop is transferred by Vinod Prakash in favour

of Tejendra Singh and Sukhjeet Singh.

2

Apprehending his forcible dispossession from

the said shop, respondent filed a suit for permanent

injunction, in which he filed an application under Order

39 Rule 1 & 2 C.P.C. Learned trial Court rejected his

temporary injunction application, however, the Appeal

filed by respondent under Order 43 Rule 1 (r) C.P.C.

was allowed by learned Additional District Judge,

Khatima, District Udham Singh Nagar. Feeling

aggrieved by the judgment rendered by learned

Appellate Court, landlords have filed this writ petition.

3.

Learned Appellate Court has considered and

discussed all relevant aspects in great detail and has

given valid reasons for upsetting trial Court’s finding on

prima facie case. This Court concurs with the view

taken by learned Appellate Court.

4.

Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners

submits that the judgment rendered by Appellate Court

is unsustainable, as it is contrary to the settled legal

position that no injunction can be granted against true

owner of the property. The said submission is without

any force.

5.

Although, it is settled position in law that

injunction cannot be granted against true owner of the

property, however, it is equally well settled in our

jurisprudence governed by rule of law that even an

unauthorized occupant can be ejected from a property

only in the manner provided by law.

6.

In the present case, upon landlords’ refusal

to accept rent, respondent started depositing rent in

Court under Section 30 (1) of U.P. Urban Buildings

3

(Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972

(hereinafter referred to as “U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972”).

Merely because the order passed under Section 30 (1)

of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 was set aside on technical

ground by the Revisional Court vide judgment dated

09.05.2017, will not entitle the landlords to forcibly

evict the tenant.

7.

Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Lallu

Yeshwant Singh Vs. Rao Jagdish Singh, reported in AIR

1968 SC 620, has cited with approval the following

observation made by Bombay High Court in the case of

K.K. Verma Vs. Union of India, reported in AIR 1954

Bombay 358, “Under the Indian law the possession of a

tenant who has ceased to be a tenant is protected by

law. Although he may not have a right to continue in

possession after the termination of the tenancy his

possession is juridical and that possession is protected

by statute. Under Section 9 of the Specific Relief Act, a

tenant, who has ceased to be a tenant, may sue for

possession against his landlord if the landlord deprives

him of possession otherwise than in due course of law,

but a trespasser who has been thrown out of

possession cannot go to court under Section 9 and

claim possession against the