Allahabad High Court
Anil Agarwal vs Incharge District Judge Lucknow And 7 ... on 14 May, 2025
Author: Pankaj Bhatia
Bench: Pankaj Bhatia
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
Neutral Citation: 2025:AHC-LKO:28012
Reserved: 08.05.2025
Pronounced: 14.05.2025
Court No. - 6
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 1000115 of 2011
Petitioner :- Anil Agarwal
Respondent :- Incharge District Judge Lucknow And 7 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Mohd. Aslam Khan,Mohd. Shadab Khan,Ram Karan Agrawal
Counsel for Respondent :- Amit Kumar Kaushal,Akhilesh Kumar Kalra,Anurag Srivastava,Avtar Singh,Brijesh Kr. Saxena,Jyotiresh Pandey,Phool Chandra Mishra,Poorendu Mishra,Pratap Singh Mehra,Shyam Mohan Pradhan
Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.
1. Heard Mohd. M.A. Khan, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mohd. Aslam Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner.
None has appeared for the respondents.
2. Present petition has been filed challenging the orders dated 07.06.2010, 13.06.2011 & 05.07.2011.
3. The facts, in brief, are that Bungalow No.1 A, Nehru Road, Cantt., Lucknow having area of 10140 sq.ft. was initially leased out to one Raghunandan Singh who mortgaged the said bungalow to one Kashi Nath Agarwal and after his death, Shri Madan Mohan Agarwal became the lessee in place of Shri Raghunandan Singh. Subsequently, after the partition, the area ad-measuring 1685 sq.ft. was allotted in the share of Shri Madan Mohan Agarwal and thereafter the house number was referred to as 1-A, Part B, Nehru Road, Cantt., Lucknow. Subsequently, Shri Madan Mohan Agarwal executed an unregistered agreement to sale in favour of father of the petitioner and it is claimed that the possession was also delivered and the petitioner continued to be in possession since 1980.
4. It is stated that in the year 2008, Sardar Gur Bachan Singh, now represented by Respondent Nos.3 to 8, tried to forcibly enter into the house which resulted in filing of Regular Suit No.984 of 2008. It is stated that on 26.02.2008, Sardar Gur Bachan Singh moved an application under Section 16(1)(b) of U.P. Act No.13 of 1972 for release of the house in his favour claiming himself to be landlord. The said accommodation was then under the tenancy of one Shri Mahendra Singh who vacated the building and removed his effects, as such, a vacancy accrued under Section 12 for which the release was sought. Subsequently, Sardar Gur Bachan Singh died and after the death of Sardar Gur Bachan Singh, respondent nos.3 to 8 were substituted. Subsequently, an order of eviction was passed and thereafter an ex-parte order of release was also passed in favour of Sardar Gur Bachan Singh. The petitioner thereafter moved an application for recalling the order of release dated 07.06.2010 which was opposed by the respondent, however, the said application came to be dismissed on 13.06.2011 and the petitioner was granted 15 days' time to vacate the premises. Aggrieved against the said order dated 13.06.2011, a review application was filed which was dismissed and thereafter, a revision was preferred under Section 18 of the Act. By means of the order dated 05.07.2011, the revision filed by the petitioner was held to be not maintainable and it was left open for the petitioner to claim his right on the basis of the unregistered agreement. The revisional Court considered all the arguments including the argument that the premises was covered under the U.P. Act No.13 of 1972. The said orders are under challenge.
5. Main contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the property in question is situated in a cantonment area and thus, not covered by the provisions of U.P. Act No.13 of 1972. Main reliance is placed upon a judgment of this Court in the case of K.C. Sharma v. Kashi Nath Gupta (Civil Revision No.72 of 1998) decided on 24.05.2007 and Review Application No.181 of 2007 decided on 26.10.2007.
6. He further relies upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Lekhraj v. IV Addl. District Judge, Meerut and Ors.; AIR 1982 All 265, specifically Paragraph 9. However, the said judgment has no applicability to the facts of the present case for the reasons recorded herein after.
7. He further relies upon a judgment in the case of Smt. Leelawati Kanaujia and Ors. v. Additional Distt. Judge/Special Judge P.C. Act, Lko. and Ors.; 2018 SCC OnLine All 6402, wherein the following was recorded:
"6. It has been contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioners that the judgment and order passed by both the Courts below is without jurisdiction because the house in question is situated in the cantonment area and U.P. Act No. 13, 1972 was not applicable to the building. According to the learned Counsel for the petitioners, the Parliament has enacted cantonment (Extension of Rent Control Laws) of Act, 1957 and under section 3 thereof, power has been given to the Central Government to extend with restriction, modification, the provisions of laws relating to control of rent and eviction to the cantonment of the State. A notification has also been issued in this regard which specifically provides that the said notification will not apply to any house which' is or may be appropriate by the Central Government on lease under the Cantonments (House Accommodation) Act, 1923. The notification is of the year 1903 and thus every house in Lucknow Cantonment is liable to be appropriated on lease under the Act. In view of this, both the judgments passed by the Courts below are without jurisdiction and are liable to be set aside on this ground alone. It has also been argued that the Courts have not considered the affidavit filed by the petitioners in support of their contentions. The Courts also failed to consider that the private respondent No. 3 had sufficient accommodation for his family and his need was not bonafide. The petitioners sought amendment in their written statement by inserting plea of bar but their application was wrongly rejected."
8. I am unable to agree with the said judgment for the reason that there is no material placed on record to show that the building in question is appropriated under the Cantonments (House Accommodation) Act, 1923. In the absence thereof, all the buildings will be covered under the U.P. Act No.13 of 1972.
9. Reliance is also placed upon U.P. Cantonment (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1952, however, reliance on the said Act is misplaced after the enactment of 1972 Act and the amendments carried out in the Cantonment Act is recorded herein after.
10. Thus, the first question as agitated by Mohd. M.A. Khan, learned Senior Advocates, is as to whether the provisions of U.P. Act No.13 of 1972 would apply to the premises in question as the premises is situated in a cantonment area.
11. It is essential to refer that in exercise of powers under Section 3 of the Cantonments (Extension of Rent Control Laws) Act, 1957, the Central Government extended the provision of U.P. Act No.13 of 1972 to all the cantonments from the date of the said notification dated 01.09.1973. The modifications in respect of Section 1 & 2 are quoted herein below:
"In the said Act,
(1) in Section 1,
(i) in sub-section (3) after clause (d) the following clause shall be inserted, namely:
"(e) Every Cantonment in Uttar Pradesh declared to be Cantonment under Section 3 of the Cantonments Act, 1924 (2 of 1924)";
(ii) for sub-section (4), the following sub-section shall be substituted, namely:
"(4) It shall come into force at once";
(2) in Section 2,
(i) in sub-section (1), after clause (c) the following clause shall be inserted, namely:
"(cc) Any building within the Cantonment which is or may be appropriated by the Central Government on lease under the Cantonments (House Accommodation) Act, 1923 (6 of 1923);
(ii) in sub-section (3), for the words "State Government", the words "Central Government" shall be substituted;"
12. These aspects were also considered by the revisional Court extensively in the impugned judgment, thus, the submission made by Mohd. M.A. Khan, learned Senior Advocate, on that count with regard to inapplicability of U.P. Act No.13 of 1972 is rejected.
13. The other reasons for rejecting the writ petition are that the petitioner claimed to be in possession by virtue of an unregistered agreement and resisted the release order claiming himself to be in possession. Admittedly, the petitioner had no allotment/release order in his favour by virtue of which he claims possession, thus, he had no right to even challenge the release order. The revisional Court rightly held that the petitioner would be entitled to claim his rights as claimed by him which flow from the agreement to sale said to be executed in his favour.
14. No good ground for interference is made out.
15. Present petition lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed.
Order Date :- 14.05.2025 [Pankaj Bhatia, J.]
nishant
