Allahabad High Court
Dharamjeet Singh vs The Zila Panchayat Bulandshahar ... on 14 February, 2023
Bench: J.J. Munir
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Court No. - 6 Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 1582 of 2023 Petitioner :- Dharamjeet Singh Respondent :- The Zila Panchayat Bulandshahar Through Its Additional Chief Executive Officer And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Anupam Kulshreshtha Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Aditya Bhushan Singhal,Rahul Pandey Hon'ble J.J. Munir,J. 1. Heard Mr. Anupam Kulshreshtha, learned Counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Pankaj Agarwal, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No. 2 and Mr. Aditya Bhushan Singhal, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of respondent No. 1. 2. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution is directed against an order of the Prescribed Authority/ City Magistrate, Bulandshahr dated 10.08.2021 in Execution Case No.18 of 2016 and the judgment and order dated 01.02.2023 passed by the Additional District Judge, Court No.2, Bulandshahr in Civil Appeal No. 55 of 2021, affirming the last mentioned order. 3. The orders impugned have been passed by the Authorities below in enforcement of an eviction order dated 11.03.2016 passed by the Prescribed Authority under the Uttar Pradesh Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1972 (for short, 'the Act'), that has been affirmed in an appeal by the learned District Judge and further by this Court in a writ petition. The current challenge arises from proceedings for execution of the eviction orders that have already attained finality. 4. Admittedly, the petitioner was inducted as a tenant in Shop No.7, Banarasi Das Market, Ansari Road, Bulandshahr by the Zila Panchayat, Bulandshahr. He held the shop initially on a monthly rent of Rs.469/-. It appears that there was some case of default against the petitioner. The petitioner shall be referred to as 'the tenant' hereinafter. In a Board Meeting dated 24.07.2012, the Zila Panchayat say that, they have nominally enhanced the monthly rent to a figure of Rs.1304/- per month w.e.f. 01.04.2012. The tenant continued to remain in default. Accordingly, the Zila Panchayat being a public authority, to whom the Act applies, moves the Prescribed Authority/ City Magistrate, Bulandshahr by a complaint under Section 4/7 of the Act, seeking relief of eviction against the tenant from the demised shop, besides recovery of rent and mesne profits. The aforesaid case was registered as Case No.801 of 2014. 5. The tenant contested the case before the Prescribed Authority by filing their objections and written statement. The Prescribed Authority by a judgment and order dated 11.03.2016 allowed the complaint/ application instituted by the Zila Panchayat, Bulandshahr and directed the tenant?s eviction, besides ordering them to pay a sum of Rs.27,489/- along with 9% interest as arrears of rent from 01.04.2012 to December, 2013. In addition, mesne profits at the rate of Rs.3000/- per month were directed to be paid w.e.f. 01.02.2014. This is the substantive order of eviction passed against the tenant, which has not been set aside by any Court of competent jurisdiction till date. 6. This order was put to challenge by the tenant in appeal under Section 9 of the Act, preferred to the District Judge of Bulandshahr. The District Judge, before whom the appeal came to be registered as Civil Appeal No. 69 of 2016, assigned it for hearing to the Additional District Judge, Court No.2, Bulandhshahr. The Additional District Judge vide his judgment and order dated 31.01.2018 dismissed the tenant?s appeal and affirmed the order of eviction. 7. The tenant, aggrieved by the eviction order by the Prescribed Authority and upheld by the District Judge, challenged it before this Court by means of Writ-C No.8659 of 2018. The aforesaid writ petition was heard and dismissed by this Court vide judgment and order dated 15.03.2018, granting four months' time to the tenant to vacate the premises in dispute, provided the tenant gave an undertaking to this effect before the Prescribed Authority within a period of two weeks. The tenant has not vacated. This compelled the Zila Panchayat to move an application for execution of the eviction order before the Prescribed Authority, who after hearing parties vide order dated 10.08.2021 has directed the tenant's eviction. The order dated 10.08.2021 passed in the execution case has again been put to challenge by the tenant before the District Judge vide Civil Appeal No. 55 of 2021. The Additional District Judge by a judgment and order dated 01.02.2023 has dismissed the appeal. 8. Aggrieved, this petition has been instituted. 9. Mr. Anupam Kulshreshtha, learned Counsel for the tenant has been at pains to urge before this Court that the entire proceedings initiated under the Act are without jurisdiction, because the demised shop is no longer pubic premises within the meaning of Section 2(e) of the Act. He has attempted at this stage of the proceedings to go into the question of title to the land, whereon the demised shops have been constructed. In substance, he says that the land on which the demised shops were constructed belonged to Zamindars, Lala Jamuna Prasad and Ganga Sahai, who had leased out the land to the Government/ Local Bodies in the year 1878 for the purpose of construction of a women's hospital. The women's hospital was constructed, but in the year 1984, it was transferred to the Eidgah Road in a new building. The premises was then used as a veterinary hospital and some part thereof was given to a library by the Zila Parishad. It is emphasized that there is a written condition in the lease dated 07.02.1882 that the land would be used by the Local Bodies, who are now the Zila Panchayat for the purpose of a women's hospital alone and in the event of an inconsistent user, the lease will stand terminated automatically. The heirs of the original Zamindar, Kali Charan gave a notice of eviction to the Zila Panchayat on 28.12.1966 asking them to vacate the premises within two months and remove all their constructions etc. The said suit was registered as O.S. No. 115 of 1975 on the file of the Munsif, Bulandshahr. The suit was decreed for eviction against the Zila Panchayat (formerly known as a Zila Parishad) on 04.09.1978. 10. An appeal to the District Judge met with partial success when the Second Additional District Judge, Bulandshahr partly allowed Civil Appeal No. 341 of 1978 and set aside the Zila Panchayat's eviction, but upheld the decree of the Trial Court for the payment of pendente lite and future damages. A second appeal was carried to this Court by Subodh Kumar, an heir of Kali Charan. The aforesaid second appeal being Second Appeal No. 1619 of 1980, Subodh Kumar vs. Zila Parishad came to be allowed by a judgment and decree dated 14.05.2003. The judgment of the Additional District Judge was set aside and the Trial Court's decree dated 04.09.1978 was restored. Against the said decree, the Zila Panchayat went up in appeal to the Supreme Court by way of a Special Leave Petition, which was converted to Civil Appeal No. 8677 of 2003. The appeal of the Zila Panchayat too was dismissed and the decree of this Court in second appeal upheld. 11. It is submitted by Mr. Anupam Kulshreshtha that after dismissal of the appeal by the Supreme Court, the Zila Panchayat have lost title to the demised shop and, therefore, it has ceased to be public premises. 12. Surprisingly, this issue was not raised in the first round of litigation when the order of eviction was challenged right up to this Court and the tenant's writ petition dismissed, granting the tenant four months' time to vacate the demised shop. 13. Now at the stage of execution, when the point has been mooted, the Additional District Judge in his judgment impugned has reasoned very aptly that what was taken on lease from the Zamindar by the Zila Panchayat or whichever its predecessor Local Body was, was land whereon different buildings were constructed from time to time, including the demised shop, which has been let out to the tenant. It is not in dispute that the demised shop, which has been let out to the tenant, is property of the Zila Panchayat, which they have constructed and let out. Even if in consequence of the decree passed in the title suit, the Zila Panchayat have lost title to the land on which the demised shop has been constructed, the Zila Panchayat do not by that fact alone loose title to the shops that they have constructed, unless in execution of the decree the shops are demolished and possession taken from the Zila Panchayat. That has not happened. The Zamindar's interest held by Subodh Kumar, his predecessor, has been transferred through sale deeds to respondent No.2, Smt. Sudha Rani. She does not claim title to the demised shop. The Additional District Judge has upheld the tenant's eviction on the ground that the Zila Panchayat are still the owners and landlords of the demised shop and further on the ground that the tenant having lost against the order of eviction right up to this Court cannot be heard to raise all these kinds of title disputes in summary proceedings for eviction of unauthorized occupants. 14. We are in agreement with the aforesaid reasoning of the Additional District Judge. To add to it, the fact remains that the tenant cannot renounce their character as such as they have entered the demised shop, accepting the Zila Panchayat as their landlord. They cannot be heard to invoke a superior title in a third party to protect their possession against proceedings lawfully brought by their landlord for eviction. Quite apart, the action of the tenant in raising all these kinds of disputes at the stage of execution cannot be permitted. In fact, to raise this kind of a dispute in the teeth of the earlier orders of this Court, upholding the tenant?s eviction and granting them four months' time to vacate the demised shop is rather unfair conduct, which this Court cannot countenance. 15. In the considered opinion of this Court, the impugned orders directing the tenant's eviction, rather execution of the orders of eviction, cannot be permitted to be reopened on the basis of such far-reaching title objections, that would hardly lie in the tenant's mouth. 16. The petition fails and is, accordingly, dismissed. 17. At this stage, Mr. Anupam Kulshreshtha comes up with a plea that some reasonable time may be granted to the tenant to vacate the demised shop on a solemn undertaking that the same would be vacated and peaceful and vacant possession delivered to be Zila Panchayat. 18. In the totality of circumstances, this Court thinks that three months time for the purpose ought to be granted, but subject to an undertaking to this effect being furnished by the tenant on an affidavit before the City Magistrate, Bulandshahr, clearly stating that the petitioners shall vacate the demised shop on or before 13.05.2023. The undertaking as aforesaid shall be furnished within a period of 15 days. 19. In the event of the default in furnishing the undertaking or failure to deliver peaceful and vacant possession on or before the date fixed for vacation, the order of eviction shall become executable forthwith. Order Date :- 14.2.2023 Anoop
