Ramesh Kumar And Another ... vs Smt. Raj Kumari on 2 December, 2025

2025:UHC:10724

Judgement Reserved on: 06.10.2025
Judgement Pronounced on:02.12.2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
AT NAINITAL
WRIT PETITION (M/S) No. 2302 OF 2017

Ramesh Kumar and Another ......Petitioners

Vs.

Smt. Raj Kumari .....Respondent

Presence: Mr. S. K. Jain, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Siddhartha Jain, learned
counsel for the Petitioners.
Mr. Siddharth Sah, learned counsel for Respondent.

Hon'ble Ashish Naithani, J.

The present writ petition challenges three orders, namely the
judgment dated 05.08.2017 passed by the III Additional District Judge,
Dehradun, in Rent Control Revision No. 1 of 2005, the vacancy order
dated 07.01.2002 passed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer,
Dehradun, and the release order dated 12.01.2005 passed by the said
authority. The Petitioners seek the quashing of all these orders.

2. The dispute relates to two rooms and a verandah forming part of
property No. 31/32, Balliwala Chowk, Kanwali Road, Dehradun. The
property was originally owned by Shri Raja Ram, who had purchased it
vide sale deed dated 29.01.1975 from Lt. Col. James Harris (Retired). Shri
Raja Ram continued to remain its absolute owner until his death on
23.11.1981.

3. During his lifetime, a portion of the property comprising four
rooms, a covered verandah, a courtyard, a latrine, a bath and a tin shed

1
WRIT PETITION (M/S) NO. 2302 OF 2017, Ramesh Kumar and Another Vs. Smt. Raj Kumari -

Ashish Naithani J.
2025:UHC:10724

kitchen had been allotted on 01.06.1970 to Smt. Kamlesh, the elder sister
of Petitioner No. 2. Petitioner No. 2, who married Petitioner No. 1 in
1972, resided with her sister in the allotted accommodation. It is the case
of the Petitioners that Shri Raja Ram treated Petitioner No. 2 as his
daughter and relied upon her for care and assistance during his lifetime,
and that he executed a Will dated 20.02.1976 bequeathing the portion in
question to her.

4. After the death of Shri Raja Ram, Petitioner No. 2 claims to have
become the absolute owner of the accommodation on the strength of the
said Will. It is further asserted that Smt. Kamlesh constructed a separate
residence in the year 1977, shifted thereto permanently, and surrendered
her tenancy rights in favour of Petitioner No. 2, who continued in
uninterrupted occupation of the premises thereafter.

5. On 21.12.1987, the Respondent filed an application under
Section 16 of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings Regulation of Letting
Rent and Eviction Act, 1972, alleging vacancy. The Rent Control
Inspector submitted his report dated 19.01.1988. The Petitioners filed
objections dated 02.02.1989 disputing the vacancy and asserting
ownership of Petitioner No. 2.

6. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer rejected the release
application on 24.04.1991. In Rent Control Revision No. 32 of 1991, the
revisional court allowed the revision on 25.08.1994, set aside the rejection
order, and remanded the matter for reconsideration of the questions of
vacancy and title. The Petitioners challenged the remand before the High

2
WRIT PETITION (M/S) NO. 2302 OF 2017, Ramesh Kumar and Another Vs. Smt. Raj Kumari -

Ashish Naithani J.
2025:UHC:10724

Court of Judicature at Allahabad, but their writ petition was dismissed on
18.03.1999.

7. Upon remand, the Rent Control and Eviction Officer declared the
accommodation vacant on 07.01.2002 and passed the release order on
12.01.2005 in favour of the Respondent. The Petitioners challenged both
orders in Rent Control Revision No. 1 of 2005. The District Judge allowed
the revision on 05.03.2005 and set aside the vacancy and release orders.

8. The Respondent challenged the revisional order before this Court
in Writ Petition No. 301 of 2005. By judgment dated 04.10.2016, this
Court set aside the revisional order dated 05.03.2005 and directed the
District Judge, Dehradun, to decide the revision afresh in accordance with
law.

9. Contrary to this direction, the revision was taken up not by the
District Judge but by the III Additional District Judge, who dismissed it on
05.08.2017 and affirmed the vacancy and release orders. Hence, the
present writ petition.

10. Learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioners submitted that the
judgment dated 05.08.2017 is without jurisdiction since this Court had
specifically directed the District Judge to decide the revision afresh. It was
contended that the direction was person-specific and required the District
Judge himself to hear and decide the matter. It was next contended that the
Rent Control and Eviction Officer erred in declaring the accommodation
vacant despite the continuous and lawful occupation of Petitioner No. 2 as
owner.

3
WRIT PETITION (M/S) NO. 2302 OF 2017, Ramesh Kumar and Another Vs. Smt. Raj Kumari -

Ashish Naithani J.
2025:UHC:10724

11. The Petitioners contended that the alleged vacancy was contrary
to Section 12 of the Act and that the authority failed to consider the
existence of the Will and the alleged surrender of tenancy by Smt.
Kamlesh. It was also urged that the Rent Control authorities and the
revisional court exceeded their jurisdiction by undertaking an elaborate
adjudication upon the validity of the Will, which is a matter strictly within
the domain of the civil court.

12. Learned counsel for the Respondent supported the impugned
orders. He submitted that the vacancy was correctly declared as the
original tenant had ceased to occupy the premises. It was further argued
that the Petitioners failed to establish lawful occupation or ownership and
that the Will relied upon by them was unproven.

13. It was contended that the Additional District Judge was
competent to decide the revision since the revisional jurisdiction is vested
in courts subordinate to the District Judge under the administrative
scheme.

14. Heard learned counsel for the Parties and perused the records.

15. This Court finds that the impugned judgment dated 05.08.2017
suffers from a jurisdictional infirmity. This Court, while deciding Writ
Petition No. 301 of 2005, had specifically directed the District Judge,
Dehradun, to decide the revision afresh. The direction was clear and
unambiguous and required the District Judge personally to exercise
revisional jurisdiction. Once a superior court remands a matter to a

4
WRIT PETITION (M/S) NO. 2302 OF 2017, Ramesh Kumar and Another Vs. Smt. Raj Kumari -

Ashish Naithani J.
2025:UHC:10724

specified authority, the jurisdiction becomes person-specific and is
incapable of further delegation unless permitted by the remanding court.
The III Additional District Judge was therefore not competent to decide
the remanded revision. The judgment dated 05.08.2017 accordingly stands
vitiated for want of jurisdiction.

16. Even otherwise, the vacancy order dated 07.01.2002 does not
withstand scrutiny. Section 12 of the Act contemplates vacancy only when
the tenant ceases to occupy the building voluntarily or when statutory
conditions indicative of vacancy stand satisfied. The record indicates that
Petitioner No. 2 has been in continuous occupation of the accommodation
since 1972. The Petitioners raised a specific plea that Smt. Kamlesh had
surrendered her tenancy rights and that Petitioner No. 2 was occupying the
premises as owner under the Will executed by Shri Raja Ram.

17. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer did not adequately
examine these aspects. Vacancy cannot be presumed merely upon the
shifting of the original tenant without examining whether the subsequent
occupation was lawful or ratified by the landlord. The Rent Control and
Eviction Officer failed to undertake this enquiry and proceeded on a
mechanical assumption of vacancy.

18. Furthermore, the revisional court travelled beyond the limits of
its jurisdiction by entering into questions relating to the validity of the
Will and ownership of the premises. Authorities acting under Sections 12
and 16 of the Act cannot adjudicate complex questions of title, particularly
when parallel civil proceedings concerning the same subject matter exist.
The findings recorded on the genuineness of the Will and the competence

5
WRIT PETITION (M/S) NO. 2302 OF 2017, Ramesh Kumar and Another Vs. Smt. Raj Kumari -

Ashish Naithani J.
2025:UHC:10724

of the testator pertain to matters exclusively triable by a civil court and
hence are without jurisdiction.

19. The cumulative effect of these infirmities renders the vacancy
order dated 07.01.2002 and the release order dated 12.01.2005
unsustainable. The revisional judgment dated 05.08.2017, being contrary
to the judicial direction issued by this Court and being founded upon
findings recorded without jurisdiction, cannot be allowed to stand.

ORDER

The writ petition is allowed.

The judgment dated 05.08.2017 passed by the III Additional District Judge, Dehradun, in Rent Control Revision No. 1 of 2005 is set aside.

The vacancy order dated 07.01.2002 and the release order dated 12.01.2005 passed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Dehradun are quashed.

There shall be no order as to costs.

(Ashish Naithani J.) 02.12.2025 Arti ARTI SINGH Digitally signed by ARTI SINGH DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=487ed955e722ba65aab55409e686c12fb83a19325e8b66890fbee418e7b69c0d, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=26DC90E00D839E3E8714131F235087D2D87E133C57E7F4A7B2E734BE2521F982, cn=ARTI SINGH Date: 2025.12.03 11:50:38 +05'30'

WRIT PETITION (M/S) NO. 2302 OF 2017, Ramesh Kumar and Another Vs. Smt. Raj Kumari -

Ashish Naithani J.