Allahabad High Court
Anoop Shukla vs Smt. Urmila Agrawal And 34 Others on 20 May, 2024
Author: Neeraj Tiwari
Bench: Neeraj Tiwari
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:90443
Court No. - 50
Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 9962 of 2023
Petitioner :- Anoop Shukla
Respondent :- Smt. Urmila Agrawal And 34 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Pooja Agarwal
Counsel for Respondent :- Manoj Kumar Tiwari,Rahul Sahai
with
Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 10534 of 2023
Petitioner :- Vinod Kumar Gupta
Respondent :- Smt Urmila Agrawal And 34 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Pooja Agarwal
Counsel for Respondent :- Manoj Kumar Tiwari,Rahul Sahai
with
Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 10535 of 2023
Petitioner :- Mohd Kaleem
Respondent :- Smt Urmila Agrawal And 34 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Pooja Agarwal
Counsel for Respondent :- Manoj Kumar Tiwari,Rahul Sahai
with
Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 3874 of 2024
Petitioner :- Prabhat Jaiswal And 4 Others
Respondent :- Smt. Urmila Agrawal 34 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Pooja Agarwal
Counsel for Respondent :- Manoj Kumar Tiwari,Rahul Sahai
Hon'ble Neeraj Tiwari,J.
1. Heard Ms. Pooja Agarwal, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Rahul Sahai along with Mr. Manoj Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for the respondents.
2. By means of Petition No.9962 of 2023, petitioner has challenged the orders dated 18.3.2016, 25.5.2016 & 27.9.20216 passed by Additional District Judge, Court No.6, Bareilly in SCCR No. 24 of 2014 (Anoop Shukla vs. Smt. Urmila Agrawal and others).
3. By means of Petition No.10534 of 2023, petitioner has challenged the orders dated 18.3.2016, 11.5.2016 & 24.8.2016 passed by Additional District Judge, Court No. 6, Bareilly in S.C.C.R. No. 20 of 2014 (Vinod Kumar Gupta vs. Smt. Urminal Agrawal and others).
4. By means of Petition No.10535 of 2023, petitioner has challenged the orders dated 22.8.2023 passed by Additional District Judge, Court No.12, Bareilly in S.C.C.R. No. 25 of 2014 (Mohd Kaleem vs. Smt. Urmila Agrawal and others) and order dated 26.3.2014 passed by Judge, Small Causes Court, Bareilly in SCC Suit No. 53 of 2010 (Vishnu Autar vs. Mohd Kaleem).
5. By means of Petition No.3874 of 2024, petitioner has challenged the order dated 26.3.2014 passed by Judge, Small Causes Court, Bareilly in SCC Suit No. 55 of 2010 (Vishnu Autar and others vs. Ram Kishor Jaiswal) and orders dated 18.3.2016, 11.5.2016 and 24.8.2016 passed by Additional District Judge, Court No.6, Bareilly and order dated 22.8.2023/11.12.2023 passed by Additional District Judge, Court No.12, Bareilly in S.C.C.R. No. 19 of 2014 (Ram Kishor Jaiswal (dead) through LRs vs. Smt. Urmial Agrawal and others).
6. Since the common question of law and facts are involved in these petitions, therefore, with the consent of the counsel for parties these petitions are being decided by a common judgment.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner filed a Revision which was registered as S.C.C.R. No.24 of 2014.It is next submitted that licence was issued on 07.12.1984 in favour of the petitioner having the same address of shop, it is not in dispute, therefore, this paper clearly shows that the shop was constructed prior to cut off date i.e. 26.04.1985, therefore, under such facts of the case, Court has wrongly opined that building in question was constructed after 26.04.1985, therefore, act would be applicable. It is next submitted that so for as the second ground taken to hold that it is not applicable is also bad. The building in question is not a Dharmshala in the light of Section 3 (r) of the Rent Control Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act, 1972"). This Dharmshala based upon a Will of original owner in which property is disputed among legal heirs except Dharmshala, which is to be maintained by all legal heirs. It is next submitted that in terms of Section 3 (r) read with Section 2 (bb) of the Act, 1972 and in the light of the Will, building in question is not fulfilling the requirement of Section 2 (bb) of the Act, 1972 that is not a public charitable institution. Therefore, the Court has wrongly held that provisions of Act No.13 of 1972 would not be applicable.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner-defendant has placed reliance upon the judgment passed by this Court in the case of Swami Nath Vs. Ajay Kumar and another (Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.61595 of 2008).
9. Per contra, Mr. Rahul Sahai, learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that Licence No.290 issued on 07.12.1985 and Will dated 23.07.1990 have been filed for the first time before the Court. Earlier to bring these facts on record, amendment application dated 15.12.2015 in written statement has been filed, which was rejected vide order dated 06.04.2016. The said decision of the revisional court has never been challenged before any court of law and the revision was finally decided on 22.08.2023. Therefore, at this stage, such documents may not be taken into consideration by the Court.
10. Being confronted by the Court, Ms. Pooja Agarwal, learned counsel for the petitioner could not dispute the aforesaid facts.
11. Mr. Rahul Sahai, learned counsel for the respondent has next submitted that both the findings of the court are about the non-applicability of rent control act based upon the admission made by the defendant-petitioner before the court. He pointed out that earlier defendant himself has filed a suit bearing Original Suit No.160 of 2010 (Anoop Shukla Vs. Vishnu Avatar) with admission that he is tenant of shop in question since last 20 years from the date of construction of shop in question and by that admission date of construction would come around 1991, therefore, defendant-petitioner cannot take a different plea before this court about the construction of building of legal heirs. He next submitted that so far as the status of Dharmshala is concerned, it is admitted by the petitioner-defendant itself before the court in his cross examination that shop in question is a part of Dharmshala. This fact has also been admitted that Dharmshala was open for all public person without any restriction, therefore, court has rightly held that the shop in question is the part of Dharmshala as directed under Section 21 (bb) of the Act, 1972.
12. I have considered the rival submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, perusal of record as well as judgment relied upon by learned counsel for the parties. Certain facts of the case are undisputed. The first and foremost aspect is that the Licence No.290 issued on 07.12.1985 and Will dated 23.07.1990 had never been placed before Court and to bring the same on record, amendment application dated 15.12.2014 had been filed in the original suit which was rejected on 06.04.2016. After rejection, the said order has never been challenged, therefore, those documents cannot be taken into consideration while deciding this case, therefore, the arguments so made by learned counsel for the petitioner is having no force and same is hereby rejected.
13. Now coming to the second argument of learned counsel for the petitioner about the construction of shop in question and nature of Dharmshala. Here again the facts are undisputed. It is admitted by learned counsel for the petitioner-defendant that in Original Suit No.160 of 2010, the shop was rented and his tenancy was 20 years old and after calculation, it was found of year 1991. Likewise, it is also admitted by the petitioner-defendant that the Dharmshala is of public nature open to all public people. Once there is admission, there is no scope of interference by the court below. This Court has considered the very same issue in the matter of Swami Nath (supra). Relevant paragraph of the said judgement are quoted below:-
"12. Sri A.K. Singh, counsel for the petitioner has relied upon paragraph no. 26 of the decision rendered by the Apex Court in Epoch Interrepots Vs. M.V. Won Fu ( A.I.R. 2003 S.C.-24), wherein the Apex Court held that admissions made by a party in court are binding upon it. He submits that in view of fact apparent from the record that respondent tenant had taken the shops in August 1994 immediately after its construction, is sufficient to hold that provisions of Act no. 13/1972 were not applicable and the revisional court has committed an error in law apparent on the face of record.
13. After hearing counsel for the petitioner and on perusal of the record as well as the judgment cited by him, it appears that there is force in the submission of the learned counsel.
14. The revisional court has failed to take into considerations the admissions of respondent tenant that they were tenants in newly constructed shops to which provisions of Act no. 13/1972 were not applicable."
14. This Court has also taken the very same view that once there is admission, there is no scope of interference by the Court, therefore, there is no illegality in holding that the Act is not applicable, therefore, no interference is warranted by this Court.
15. Present petition lacks merit and it is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.
Order Date :- 20.5.2024/Atul
