Saurabh Vohra vs Vijay Kumar Trivedi, The Then Sub ...
2025 Latest Caselaw 1783 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Saurabh Vohra vs Vijay Kumar Trivedi, The Then Sub ... on 10 July, 2025

Author: Rajeev Singh

Bench: Rajeev Singh

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:39282
 
Court No. - 17
 

 
Case :- CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 2065 of 2025
 

 
Applicant :- Saurabh Vohra
 
Opposite Party :- Vijay Kumar Trivedi, The Then Sub Divisional Magistrate Nawabganj Barabanki Thru. D.M. Barabanki
 
Counsel for Applicant :- In Person
 

 
Hon'ble Rajeev Singh,J.
 

1. Heard Saurabh Vohra who appears in person.

2. The instant contempt application has been filed by the applicant alleging disobedience of the order dated 03.07.2023 passed in Contempt Application (Civil) No. 1580 of 2020.

3. The applicant submits that the order dated17.04.2019 passed in Writ Petition (Rent Control) No. 27 of 2008 (General Manager Zila Udhyong Kendra, Barabanki Vs. District Judge, Barabanki and Ors.)is not complied with in letter and spirit. An application for recovery of rent was rejected by Sub Divisional Officer, Barabanki in the most mechanical manner on 05.03.2024. Thereafter, the applicant preferred Writ-A No. 2680 of 2024 against the aforesaid order passed by Sub Divisional Officer, Nawabganj, Barabanki, but the same was dismissed. Further, the applicant preferred Special Appeal No. 162 of 2025, which was dismissed on 02.05.2025.

It is further submitted by the applicant that the present contempt application is filed against the respondent as he willfully violated the directions of this Court issued on 17.04.2019, hence, the respondent may be summoned and punished accordingly.

4. The Writ Petition i.e. Rent Control No. 27 of 2008 was decided vide order dated 17.04.2019, which is as under:-

"Heard learned counsel for the parties.

This is a writ petition filed by General Manager, Zila Udhyog Kendra, Barabanki, Belhara House Deva Road, Civil Lines, City, Pargana and Tehsil Nawabganj, Post Nawabganj, District Barabanki , for issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari quashing the order dated 7.7.2007 passed by respondent no.1 and order dated 24.3.2007 passed by respondent no.2 with the further prayer to issue a writ of Mandamus commending respondent no.2- Sub Divisional Magistrate to decide the application under Section 21 (8) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation, Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972.

Assailing the aforesaid two orders, submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the Lower Courts have failed to consider the provisions contained under Section 21(8) of the Act of 1972. He next submitted that while passing the orders, no opportunity was afforded to the petitioner to file valuer report regarding the building in question and was also not provided time to file objection in regard to valuation report dated 7.12.2006.

After making submissions at length, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that now the position on the spot is that the petitioner handed over the possession to the landlord on 19.2.2008, therefore, no cause of action survives in the present writ petition.

On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that the possession of the disputed property was handed over to him of some portion of the property and not the entire portion, therefore, the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners is not correct.

With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, this writ petition is finally disposed of with a direction to the S.S.P., Barabanki to ensure compliance of the judgment and decree as well as the order passed by the Appellate Court and hand over the entire possession of the property in dispute to respondent nos.3 to 5 within a period of eight weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of this order."

5. Earlier, one Contempt Application (Civil) No. 1580 of 2020 was filed regarding violation of the order dated 17.04.2019 passed in aforesaid petition. This contempt application was dismissed vide order dated 03.07.2023, which is as under:-

"Heard Counsel for the parties.

Petitioners have approached this Court against the order dated 17.04.2019 passed in Rent Control Writ Petition No.27 of 2008 (G.M. Zila Udyog Kendra Barabanki Vs. District Judge, Barabanki and others). The said order reads as:

" Heard learned counsel for the parties.

This is a writ petition filed by General Manager, Zila Udhyog Kendra, Barabanki, Belhara House Deva Road, Civil Lines, City, Pargana and Tehsil Nawabganj, Post Nawabganj, District Barabanki , for issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari quashing the order dated 7.7.2007 passed by respondent no.1 and order dated 24.3.2007 passed by respondent no.2 with the further prayer to issue a writ of Mandamus commending respondent no.2- Sub Divisional Magistrate to decide the application under Section 21 (8) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation, Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972.

Assailing the aforesaid two orders, submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the Lower Courts have failed to consider the provisions contained under Section 21(8) of the Act of 1972. He next submitted that while passing the orders, no opportunity was afforded to the petitioner to file valuer report regarding the building in question and was also not provided time to file objection in regard to valuation report dated 7.12.2006.

After making submissions at length, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that now the position on the spot is that the petitioner handed over the possession to the landlord on 19.2.2008, therefore, no cause of action survives in the present writ petition.

On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that the possession of the disputed property was handed over to him of some portion of the property and not the entire portion, therefore, the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners is not correct.

With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, this writ petition is finally disposed of with a direction to the S.S.P., Barabanki to ensure compliance of the judgment and decree as well as the order passed by the Appellate Court and hand over the entire possession of the property in dispute to respondent nos.3 to 5 within a period of eight weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of this order"

Learned counsel for petitioners fairly concedes that possession on entire property was given on 31.05.2022 but some rent is pending against the tenant.

The order of this court categorically rejects the petition, it does not say anything with regard to rent, hence, recovery of rent, if any, can only be through execution proceedings before appropriate Court. A contempt petition against a decree affirmed by this Court in a writ petition is not maintainable.

Hence, contempt petition is consigned to record with liberty to the petitioner to file appropriate execution proceedings."

6. It is evident from the record that one application was given by the applicant to the Sub Divisional Magistrate on 08.01.2024, which was dismissed on 05.03.2024 and the said order was challenged before this Court in Writ-A No. 2680 of 2024, which was dismissed vide order dated 27.03.2025, which is as under:-

"1. Counter affidavit filed today in Court is taken on record.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State.

3. Present petition has been filed challenging the order dated 05.03.2024 whereby the application filed under Section 34 for execution of an earlier order was rejected.

4. The facts, in brief, are that the petitioner was landlord of a property which was given on rent to the District Udyog Kendra, Barabanki. As he was restrained from seeking eviction in view of the bar created under Section 21(8) of U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to 'the Act'), he moved an application for enhancement of rent which was allowed by means of an order dated 24.03.2007. The landlord as well as the tenant were aggrieved against the said fixation of rent which was fixed at Rs.14,391/- per month, thus, they preferred an appeal. The said appeal came to be dismissed and the order dated 24.03.2007 was affirmed. Subsequently, even in the writ jurisdiction, no interference was made. Thus, the rent of the premises under the tenancy of respondent no.3 was fixed at Rs.14,391/-. As the rent was not paid and even the property was not vacated, the petitioner filed an application under Section 34(3) of the Act seeking execution of the order of enhancement, which has been dismissed by means of the order dated 05.03.2024 holding that no amount was due and payable as per the report submitted by the respondents.

5. Contention of the petitioner who appears in person is that as the rate was fixed and the property was not vacated in time, it was incumbent upon the respondents to have paid the said amount and thus, his application under Section 34(3) of the Act was maintainable and ought to have been allowed.

6. Learned counsel for the respondents/State, on the other hand, argues that the order impugned is correct in law and requires no interference; according to him, no amount was due and payable as the entire amount, according to him, was paid. He further argues that the possession was also handed over.

7. Be that as it may, Section 21(8) of the Act restricts the right of the landlord in seeking eviction from the premises which are under the tenancy of State Government or a local authority or a public sector corporation or a recognized educational institution; the right is conferred, in such cases, upon the District Magistrate to re-fix the rent at the rates as prescribed in the proviso to Section 21(8) of the Act. In terms of the said powers, the rent of the premises in occupation of respondent no.3 was fixed. In the entire Act, there is no provision for execution of the said order, the consequences of not following/paying the rent as fixed are that the landlord is entitled to file an application under Section 20 of the Act seeking eviction and a decree of arrears of rent. The application filed under Section 34(3) of the Act was prima-facie misplaced.

8. Section 34(3) of the Act is quoted herein below:

"34(3) Where any costs or other sum of money awarded under this Act by the District Magistrate or the prescribed authority or the appellate or revisional authority remains unpaid, he or it may issue a certificate of recovery in respect thereof in the prescribed form, and any person in whose favour such certificate is issued may apply to the Court of Small Causes having jurisdiction under the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887, for recovery of the amount specified in the certificate. Such court shall thereupon execute the certificate or cause the same to be executed in the same manner and by the same procedure as if it were a decree for payment of money made by itself in a suit.

9. On a plain reading of the said provision, it is clear that the said provision has been incorporated to empower the District Magistrate or the prescribed authority to take action for non-payment of the cost or "sum of money awarded under this Act". The fixation of the rent under Section 21(8) of the Act can neither be termed as a cost nor an award of money, thus, the application filed by the petitioner under Section 34(3) of the Act itself was not maintainable.

10. At this stage, reliance is placed by the petitioner on the judgment in the case of Murli Singh (Deceased by LRs.) & Ors. v. Ram Singh & Anr.; AIR 2007 UTTARAKHAND 80 wherein the Court had directed payment of rent/damages against the tenant till the grant of delivery/possession. He further places reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Shiv Kumar v. Sajida and Ors.; Civil Appeal No.2460 of 1997 dated 27.03.1997, which held that the power under Section 21 can be exercised against any person who is found in possession of the premises.

11. I am afraid that both the said judgments have no applicability in the present case.

12. In view of the foregoing discussion, no interference is called for. The petitioner would be at liberty to file a suit for decree of arrears of rent, if so advised, in accordance with law.

13. Present petition is dismissed in above terms."

7. It is undisputed fact that the applicant challenged the aforesaid order before the Division Bench in Special Appeal No. 162 of 2025, which was dismissed vide order dated 02.05.2025 that is as under:-

"1. Heard Sri Saurabh Vohra, the appellant in person and learned Standing Counsel for the State.

2. The present intra court appeal filed under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the Allahabad High Court Rules has assailed the judgment/order passed by this Court in Contempt Application(Civil) No. 1580 of 2020 whereby the contempt petition, due to handing over the possession of the entire property to the appellants, has been consigned to record.

3. It is further observed by the contempt court that once there was no direction by the writ court for payment of arrears of the rent, such a matter would not be taken up in the contempt proceeding on the strength of the order dated 17.4.2019 passed in Rent Control Writ Petition No. 27 of 2008.

4. It is not in dispute that the possession of the entire property has been handed over to the appellants.

5. That being the position, we do not find any illegality in the order impugned assailed herein this intra court appeal.

6. The appeal bereft of any merit is accordingly dismissed."

8. Considering the above facts and circumstances, it is found that for non-compliance of the order dated 17.4.2019 passed in Writ Petition (Rent Control) No.27 of 2008, Contempt Application (Civil) No.1580 of 2020 was filed, which was dismissed with the liberty to the petitioner to file appropriate execution proceedings. Thereafter, application dated 8.1.2024 was given by the applicant to the Sub Divisional Magistrate, which was rejected on 5.3.2024, then order dated 5.3.2024 passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate was challenged by the applicant in Writ A No.2680 of 2024, which was dismissed vide order dated 27.3.2025. Thereafter, applicant preferred Special Appeal No.162 of 2025 against the order dated 27.3.2025 passed by the writ court but the Special Appeal was also dismissed on 2.5.2025, then again, he preferred contempt application for violation of order dated 17.4.2019 passed in Writ Petition (Rent Control) No.27 of 2008, which is a clear abuse of legal process. It is also evident from the record that all these judicial proceedings have not been mentioned in the contempt proceedings, accordingly, the contempt application is misconceived and same is hereby dismissed.

9. This Court is also inclined to impose the cost but on the request of Bar, cost is not being imposed.

Order Date :- 10.7.2025

Arpan