1

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4750 OF 2011

GEETA GUPTA

…… APPELLANT

v.

RAMESH CHANDRA DWIVEDI & ORS. …… RESPONDENTS

J U D G M E N T

ABHAY S. OKA, J.

1.

By this appeal, the appellant who was the writ petitioner

before the High Court at Allahabad has taken an exception to

the Judgment and Order dated 9th October, 2009 passed by the

learned Single Judge of Allahabad High Court.

2.

The appellant is claiming to be the owner of premises No.

74/13, Collectorganj, Kanpur Nagar, Uttar Pradesh. The

appellant acquired the said premises by a sale deed dated 13^th

March, 1994 executed by power of attorney holder on behalf of

the original owners Shri Vishnu Swaroop Mishra and Shri Gopal

Digitally signed by

NEETU KHAJURIA

Date: 2021.09.20

18:03:09 IST

Reason:

Signature Not Verified

2

Swaroop Mishra. The petitioner claimed that the physical

possession of the premises subject matter of the sale deed was

handed over to her by her vendors which includes two Gaddis,

two godowns and a tin shed (collectively referred as “the

disputed premises”) which was earlier given by the appellant’s

vendor to one Dhruv Narayan Tripathi by way of tenancy.

3.

An application was made by the second respondent for

allotment of the disputed premises by invoking Section 16 of

the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent

and Eviction) Act, 1972 (for short the “the said Act”). The

application was made on the premise that the disputed

premises have fallen vacant in accordance with sub-section (4)

of Section 12 of the said Act. On the basis of the said

application, in accordance with Rule 8(2) of the Uttar Pradesh

Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Rules,

1972, an inspection report dated 20^th May 1995 was submitted

to the District Magistrate. The report recorded that the first

respondent-Ramesh Chandra Dwivedi was carrying on business

in the disputed premises in the name and style of M/s Ramesh

Chandra Pravesh Kumar. It was stated in the report that first

respondent informed that he was inducted as a tenant by Shri

3

Dhruv Narayan Tripathi in the disputed premises in November

1975 at monthly rent of Rs.500/-. The District Magistrate (Addl.

City Magistrate-VI) while exercising the powers under the said

Act held that on the basis of the agreement dated 15^th

November, 1975, the first respondent was inducted as a tenant

by the said Dhruv Narayan Tripathi acting as a power of

attorney holder and manager of the owners. He held that the

original owners never objected to the action of the said Dhruv

Narayan Tripathi. The Addl. City Magistrate held that the first

respondent was in continuous possession as a tenant on the

basis of the said agreement dated 15^th November, 1975 and

therefore, he has become a tenant of the disputed premises.

Hence, it was held that the disputed premises were not vacant

within the meaning of sub-section (4) of Section 12 of the said

Act.

4.

A writ petition was preferred by the petitioner against the

said Judgment and Order of the Addl. City Magistrate, which

was rejected by the impugned Judgment and Order dated 15^th

November, 1975.

5.

The learned counsel appearing for the appellant in support

of the appeal submitted that the said Dhruv Narayan Tripathi

4

had no authority to induct the first respondent as a tenant on

behalf of the predecessors-in-title of the petitioner. She

submitted that the said Dhruv Narayan Tripathi was the tenant

inducted by the predecessors-in-title of the appellant. She

submitted that on 5^th July, 1976, the disputed premises were

vacant. She submitted that the petitioner purchased the

property in the year 1994 and from that day, she has not

received any income from the disputed premises. She

submitted that the writ petition before the Allahabad High Court