Allahabad High Court
Raees Ahmad vs Additional District Judge Lucknow And ... on 8 November, 2024
Author: Pankaj Bhatia
Bench: Pankaj Bhatia
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:73987
Court No. - 7
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 1000110 of 2006
Petitioner :- Raees Ahmad
Respondent :- Additional District Judge Lucknow And Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Anurag Srivastava, Hemant Kumar Mishra, Kabir Ahmad Khan
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C., A.P.Singh Gaur, Prashant Singh Gaur
Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.
Order on IA No. 15 of 2024
Heard.
This is an application for recall of the order dated 29.07.2024.
Cause shown is sufficient.
The recall application is allowed. The order dated 29.07.2024 is recalled.
The writ petition is restored to its original file and number.
Order Date :- 8.11.2024
Arun
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 1000110 of 2006
Petitioner :- Raees Ahmad
Respondent :- Additional District Judge Lucknow And Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Anurag Srivastava,Hemant Kumar Mishra,Kabir Ahmad Khan
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,A.P.Singh Gaur,Prashant Singh Gaur
Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Vikrant Singh, Advocate holding brief of Sri A.P. Singh Gaur on behalf of the respondent and perused the record.
2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the judgment dated 18.12.1987 passed by the respondent no. 2 in P.A. Case No. 78 of 1982, whereby the application of the landlord filed under Section 21(1)(b) of the U.P. Act XIII of 1972 was allowed. The petitioner also challenges the order dated 05.09.2006, whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner being Rent Appeal No. 1 of 1998 was dismissed.
3. The facts in brief are that the respondents claiming to be landlord of the premises in occupation of the of the petitioner filed an application under Section 21(1)(b) claiming that the premises in occupation of the petitioner as a tenant was in a dilapidated condition and the same should be released under Section 21(1)(b) of the U.P. Act XIII of 1972. The petitioner as the tenant filed objection to the said application and opposed the same on various grounds, however, the Prescribed Authority after appreciating the evidence on record proceeded to pass an order in favour of the land lord under Section 21(1)(b) of the U.P. Act XIII of 1972. Being aggrieved against the same, the petitioner preferred an appeal and argue all the questions as are available to the appellant, however, the appeal came to the dismissed. Challenging both the orders, the present writ petition has been filed.
4. The contention of the counsel for the petitioner is that prior to filing of the application under Section 21(1)(b) of the U.P. Act XIII of 1972, a notice was served at the instance of the landlord, wherein it was stated that the property in question was a land, the said notice did not disclose construction of any structure, as such, the entire proceedings were bad in law and are not maintainable under Section 21(1)(b) of the U.P. Act XIII of 1972. He further submits that the mandate of Rule 17 of the Rules framed under the U.P. Act XIII of 1972 has not been followed, in as much as the map i.e. required to be filed was not filed, as such, the application was without following the mandate of Rule 17, which aspect has not been considered by the two courts. He further argues that respondent no. 1 is the daughter of the landlady. Reliance has been placed upon the following judgments:
(i) Ajit Prasad Versus Ivth Additional District Judge, Meerut and others, 1979 ARC 73;
(ii) Bishambhar Krishna Kothari Vs. Devi Dutt, 1980 ARC 240;
(iii) Hira Lal Vs. State of U.P. and others, 1997(1) ARC 572;
(iv) Ballu Ram Alias Bal Sarup Vs. Mandir Tuhi Ram Harnam Dass, 1995 Supreme Court and Full Bench Rent Cases 533;
(v) Smt. Gian Devi Anand Vs. Jeewan Kumar and others, 1985 Supreme Court and Full Bench of Rent Cases 229;
(vi) Gur Prasad Vs. First Addl. District Judge, Kanpur and another, 1997(1) ARC 462;
(vii) Shiv Kumar Sharma Vs. Vth A.D.J. Muzaffarnagar and others, 2002 (1) ARC 568;
5. The counsel for the respondent on the other hand opposed the arguments as advanced by the counsel for the petitioner by arguing that landlady initially filed a Regular Suit which was opposed by the petitioner by filing written statement stating that as construction stood on the said premises, regular suit was not maintainable and thereafter only the present proceedings were initiated. It is further argued that the issue with regard to dilapidated construction was decided by the both the courts after placing reliance on a commission report, which is a valid piece of evidence and has not been denied even in the pleadings in the writ petition. He further argues that the relationship of landlord and tenant was established and is concluded in both the judgments and as such at this stage, the dispute tried to be raised is baseless. He further draws my attention to the finding recorded by the Appellate Court to the effect that the map was existing however the same was in the name of the erstwhile owner and in the light of the said, the submission of the counsel for the petitioner merits rejection.
6. The U.P. Act XIII of 1972 was enacted to regulate the letting and eviction, specific provision was inscribed in respect of buildings which are in dilapidated condition being Section 21(1)(b) of the U.P. Act XIII of 1972. In the present case, the Amin report and finding of fact recorded by the two Courts clearly are of the view that the premises in occupation of the petitioner on monthly rent of Rs.25/- per month is in a dilapidated condition, the said finding being the finding of fact cannot be interfered in exercise of power under Article 227/226 of the Constitution of India. Provisions as contained in Rule 17 are directory and not mandatory particularly in view of the fact that the Act itself provides that the proceedings shall be decided within a reasonable time, whereas in the present case itself the proceedings are pending since the year 1982.
7. In view of the aforesaid, I do not see any reason to interfere with the two orders. The writ petition lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed. The order impugned shall be executed in accordance with law.
Order Date :- 8.11.2024
Arun
