Smt.Shakuntala And 3 Others vs Shaukat Ali And Another
2022 Latest Caselaw 9581 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 5
 

 
Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 6139 of 2022
 

 
Petitioner :- Smt.Shakuntala And 3 Others
 
Respondent :- Shaukat Ali And Another
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Nikhil Kumar,Prashant Kanha
 
Counsel for Respondent :- Manish Tandon
 

 
Hon'ble Salil Kumar Rai,J.

Heard Sri Nikhil Kumar, the counsel for the petitioners and Sri Manish Tandon, the counsel for the respondents.

This is a tenants' petition challenging the judgment and decree dated 12.10.2021 passed by the Small Causes Judge, Kanpur Nagar in SCC Case No.327 of 2000, whereby the suit instituted by the landlord-respondent for arrears of rent and eviction of the tenant from the demised premises has been decreed as well as against the judgment and order dated 16.4.2022 passed by the Additional District Judge, Court No.08, Kanpur Nagar dismissing the SCC Revision No.25 of 2022 filed against the decree of the trial court.

It has been argued by the counsel for the petitioners that the suit was not maintainable in light of the fact that the area in which the demised premises was situated was declared a slum area under Section 3 of U.P. Slum Areas (Improvement and Clearance) Act, 1962, and, therefore, the property stood acquired by the State and thus in view of Section 23 of the Act, 1962, the suit was liable to be dismissed.

The contention of the petitioners is not acceptable. The declaration of an area as slum area under Section 3 of the Act, 1962 does not automatically result in acquisition of the properties situated in the said area.

Section 23 of the Act, 1962 only provides that a decree or order can be put in execution only after obtaining the permission of the competent authority. Section 23 of the Act, 1962 does not prohibit the institution of any suit. Apart from the aforesaid even if the claim of the petitioners that the land in the slum area stood acquired, the building situated in the said land does not automatically vest in the acquiring authority.

In my aforesaid views, I am supported by the judgment dated 21.5.2014 passed by the Court in Writ-A No. 28288 of 2014 and judgment of this Court reported in Smt. Bano Vs. Ashad Ulla Khan and 4 others, 2017(3) ARC 807 as well as the judgment of this Court reported in Smt. Phoola Devi and 4 others Vs. Additional District Judge Court No.14, Kanpur Nagar and 2 others, 2020(2) ARC 610.

For the aforesaid reasons, the petition lacks merits and is dismissed.

Order Date :- 6.8.2022

Mini