Uttarakhand High Court

Gopal Krishna Jha vs Shri 108 Pujyapad Advet Panch ... on 13 November, 2025

2025:UHC:10055

Judgement Reserved on: 03.09.2025
Judgement Delivered on: 13.11.2025

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Writ Petition (M/S) No. 3627 of 2023

Gopal Krishna Jha ... Petitioner
Versus

Shri 108 Pujyapad Advet Panch Parmeshwar
Panchayati Akhara Naya Udasin Kankhal ... Respondent
With

Writ Petition (M/S) No.3634 of 2023

Abhishek Jha ... Petitioner
Versus

Shri 108 Pujyapad Advet Panch Parmeshwar
Panchayati Akhara Naya Udasin Kankhal ... Respondent

Presence: Mr. Nagesh Aggarwal, learned counsel for the Petitioners
Mr. Nikhil Singhal, learned counsel for the Respondent

Hon'ble Ashish Naithani, J.

1. These two writ petitions, arising out of connected Small
Cause Court proceedings between the same parties and involving
substantially identical questions of law and fact, are being decided
together. Both petitions challenge the judgments and decrees
passed by the trial court in separate SCC suits relating to the
Petitioners' tenancy over small shop premises at Kankhal,
Haridwar, as well as the dismissal of the corresponding revisions
by the learned II Additional District Judge, Haridwar, by orders
dated 01.09.2023.

1
Writ Petition (M/S) No. 3627 of 2023 Gopal Krishna Jha vs. Shri 108 Pujyapad Advet Panch
Parmeshwar Panchayati Akhara Naya Udasin Kankhal connected with Writ Petition (M/S)
No. 3634 of 2023 Abhishek Jha vs. Shri 108 Pujyapad Advet Panch Parmeshwar
Panchayati Akhara Naya Udasin Kankhal
Ashish Naithani J.
2025:UHC:10055

2. Since the core issue in both matters concerns the applicability
of Section 2(1)(bb) of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 and the effect of
an earlier adjudication dated 01.12.2014 determining the
Respondent-ashram's legal character, a common judgment is
warranted.

3. In WPMS 3627 of 2023, the challenge is to the decree dated
20.12.2018 in S.C.C. Suit No. 8 of 2015, affirmed on 01.09.2023 in
S.C.C. Revision No. 3 of 2019 by the II Additional District Judge,
Haridwar.

4. In WPMS 3634 of 2023, the challenge is to the decree dated
20.12.2018 in S.C.C. Suit No. 20 of 2014, affirmed on 01.09.2023
in S.C.C. Revision No. 2 of 2019 by the II Additional District
Judge, Haridwar.

5. Both the writ petitions arise out of substantially similar facts,
involve common questions of law, and pertain to the same
Respondent-ashram. Hence, they are being decided together by this
common judgment.

6. The dispute in both petitions pertains to eviction proceedings
initiated by the Respondent, Shri 108 PujyapadAdvet Panch
Parmeshwar Panchayati Akhara Naya Udasin Kankhal, against the
PetitionersGopal Krishna Jha and Abhishek Jha,who are tenants of
small commercial shops situated at Kankhal, District Haridwar.
The eviction suits were decreed in favour of the Respondent, and
the subsequent revisions preferred by the Petitioners were
dismissed, giving rise to the present proceedings.

2
Writ Petition (M/S) No. 3627 of 2023 Gopal Krishna Jha vs. Shri 108 Pujyapad Advet Panch
Parmeshwar Panchayati Akhara Naya Udasin Kankhal connected with Writ Petition (M/S)
No. 3634 of 2023 Abhishek Jha vs. Shri 108 Pujyapad Advet Panch Parmeshwar
Panchayati Akhara Naya Udasin Kankhal
Ashish Naithani J.
2025:UHC:10055

7. The facts, as emerge from the record, are that the
Respondent-ashram filed two separate suits, namely S.C.C. Suit
No. 8 of 2015 and S.C.C. Suit No. 20 of 2014, before the Judge,
Small Causes Court, Haridwar, seeking eviction of the Petitioners
from the respective tenanted premises and recovery of arrears of
rent and mesne profits.

8. The Respondent-ashram asserted that it was the owner and
landlord of the suit properties and that the Petitioners were tenants
therein on monthly rents of ₹600/- and ₹175/- respectively. It was
further contended that the Respondent was a religious and
charitable institution, duly registered, and was therefore exempted
from the operation of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of
Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as
"the Act"), by virtue of Section 2(1)(bb) thereof.

9. The Petitioners contested the suits, denying the alleged
exemption and asserting that the Respondent was merely a
registered society under the Societies Registration Act, 1860, and
not a charitable or religious institution within the meaning of the
Act. It was further stated that they were lawful tenants, regularly
paying rent, and that they were entitled to the benefit of Section
20(4) of the Act, having deposited the rent before the court on the
first date of hearing.

10. It appears that prior to the filing of the aforesaid suits, one
Misc. Suit No. 62 of 2014 (Abhishek Jha and another v. Shri 108
PujyapadAdvet Panch Parmeshwar Panchayati Akhara Naya
Udasin Kankhal) was instituted under Section 92 of the Code of

3
Writ Petition (M/S) No. 3627 of 2023 Gopal Krishna Jha vs. Shri 108 Pujyapad Advet Panch
Parmeshwar Panchayati Akhara Naya Udasin Kankhal connected with Writ Petition (M/S)
No. 3634 of 2023 Abhishek Jha vs. Shri 108 Pujyapad Advet Panch Parmeshwar
Panchayati Akhara Naya Udasin Kankhal
Ashish Naithani J.
2025:UHC:10055

Civil Procedure, 1908, by the Petitioner Abhishek Jha and another,
seeking to challenge the management of the Respondent-ashram by
alleging misappropriation and misconduct.

11. In the said proceedings, the Respondent-ashram filed its
written statement specifically denying that it was a public religious
charitable trust, and asserting that it was a society registered under
the Societies Registration Act, 1860. The learned District Judge,
Haridwar, by judgment dated 01.12.2014, dismissed the suit
holding that the Respondent-ashram was not a public religious and
charitable trust. That order attained finality and was never assailed
before any higher forum.

12. The trial court, while deciding the subsequent eviction suits,
framed issues inter alia regarding the applicability of the Rent
Control Act and the character of the Respondent-ashram. The trial
court, however, decreed both suits by judgments dated 20.12.2018,
holding that the Respondent was engaged in religious and
charitable activities such as organising bhandaras during Kumbh
and Ardh Kumbh Melas, and hence was entitled to exemption
under Section 2(1)(bb) of the Act.

13. The Petitioners preferred revisions before the District Judge,
Haridwar, which were numbered as S.C.C. Revision No. 2 of 2019
and S.C.C. Revision No. 3 of 2019. The said revisions were
subsequently transferred to the Court of the 2ndAdditional District
Judge, Haridwar. They were dismissed by a common judgment
dated 01.09.2023, thereby affirming the decrees of the trial court.

4
Writ Petition (M/S) No. 3627 of 2023 Gopal Krishna Jha vs. Shri 108 Pujyapad Advet Panch
Parmeshwar Panchayati Akhara Naya Udasin Kankhal connected with Writ Petition (M/S)
No. 3634 of 2023 Abhishek Jha vs. Shri 108 Pujyapad Advet Panch Parmeshwar
Panchayati Akhara Naya Udasin Kankhal
Ashish Naithani J.
2025:UHC:10055

14. Aggrieved by the said judgments and decrees, the Petitioners
have preferred the present writ petitions under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India, contending that both the courts below
committed a manifest error of law in holding the Respondent to be
a charitable and religious institution, contrary to the binding
finding recorded by the District Judge, Haridwar, in Misc. Suit No.
62 of 2014.

15. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
records.

16. Learned counsel for the Petitioners submitted that both the
courts below have committed a grave error of law and fact in
holding that the Respondent-ashram is a public religious and
charitable institution entitled to exemption under Section 2(1)(bb)
of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and
Eviction) Act, 1972.

17. It was argued that such a finding is directly contrary to the
earlier judgment dated 01.12.2014 passed by the learned District
Judge, Haridwar, in Misc. Suit No. 62 of 2014 (Abhishek Jha and
another v. Shri 108 PujyapadAdvet Panch Parmeshwar Panchayati
Akhara Naya Udasin Kankhal), wherein it was categorically held
that the Respondent is not a public religious or charitable trust.
That judgment, it is submitted, attained finality as it was never
challenged before any higher forum.

18. It was further contended that having once asserted in the said
civil proceedings that it was a registered society under the Societies
Registration Act, 1860, and not a trust, the Respondent is now

5
Writ Petition (M/S) No. 3627 of 2023 Gopal Krishna Jha vs. Shri 108 Pujyapad Advet Panch
Parmeshwar Panchayati Akhara Naya Udasin Kankhal connected with Writ Petition (M/S)
No. 3634 of 2023 Abhishek Jha vs. Shri 108 Pujyapad Advet Panch Parmeshwar
Panchayati Akhara Naya Udasin Kankhal
Ashish Naithani J.
2025:UHC:10055

estopped from taking a contrary plea. The subsequent stand
adopted by the Respondent, claiming itself to be a religious and
charitable body, is inconsistent with its earlier position and offends
the doctrine of estoppel by conduct as well as the principle of res
judicata.

19. Learned counsel submitted that mere holding of bhandaras or
offering public meals during Kumbh or Ardh Kumbh Mela cannot,
by itself, render an institution charitable or religious within the
meaning of Sections 3(r) and 3(s) of the Act. It was argued that the
courts below failed to call for or consider any document evidencing
registration or declaration of the Respondent as a religious or
charitable trust, and hence, their findings are perverse and based on
conjecture.

20. It was further contended on behalf of the Petitioners that
proceedings before the Small Cause Court are summary in nature,
and such a court cannot adjudicate upon complicated questions
regarding legal status, character, or ownership of an institution.
Once the competent civil court had already determined the nature
of the Respondent in the earlier proceedings, the Small Cause
Court could not have revisited that issue. The impugned orders, it
was argued, therefore suffer from jurisdictional error.

21. The learned counsel submitted that the Petitioners are bona
fide tenants, paying regular rent, and had complied with the
requirements of Section 20(4) of the Act by tendering rent and
arrears on the first date of hearing. Despite this, both courts below
have denied them the statutory protection available under the Rent

6
Writ Petition (M/S) No. 3627 of 2023 Gopal Krishna Jha vs. Shri 108 Pujyapad Advet Panch
Parmeshwar Panchayati Akhara Naya Udasin Kankhal connected with Writ Petition (M/S)
No. 3634 of 2023 Abhishek Jha vs. Shri 108 Pujyapad Advet Panch Parmeshwar
Panchayati Akhara Naya Udasin Kankhal
Ashish Naithani J.
2025:UHC:10055

Control Act. The findings, it was urged, are arbitrary, mechanical,
and violative of settled principles of law.

22. Per contra, learned counsel for the Respondent supported the
impugned judgments and orders. Learned counsel contended that
both the courts below, after a detailed consideration of the
pleadings and evidence, have concurrently held that the
Respondent-ashram is engaged in religious and charitable activities
for the benefit of the public at large. It was urged that the ashram
regularly participates in religious congregations, organises
bhandaras, and provides accommodation to saints and devotees
during the Kumbh Mela, thereby fulfilling the character of a
religious and charitable institution.

23. Learned counsel for the Respondent further submitted that
the earlier civil proceedings of the year 2014 were filed by the
Petitioners' own family members with an ulterior motive, and the
findings recorded therein cannot bind the Respondent in the present
eviction proceedings, as the nature and scope of both matters are
distinct. It was also submitted that the Respondent's registration
under the Societies Registration Act does not negate its charitable
and religious character; rather, it is merely a legal formality for
administrative purposes.

24. It was lastly argued that both the trial court and revisional
court have returned concurrent findings of fact based on evidence,
which cannot be reappreciated by this Court in exercise of its
limited supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India. The Respondent has obtained lawful decrees

7
Writ Petition (M/S) No. 3627 of 2023 Gopal Krishna Jha vs. Shri 108 Pujyapad Advet Panch
Parmeshwar Panchayati Akhara Naya Udasin Kankhal connected with Writ Petition (M/S)
No. 3634 of 2023 Abhishek Jha vs. Shri 108 Pujyapad Advet Panch Parmeshwar
Panchayati Akhara Naya Udasin Kankhal
Ashish Naithani J.
2025:UHC:10055

of eviction, and the writ petitions have been filed only to delay the
execution proceedings and prolong possession of the tenanted
premises.

25. At this juncture, the controversy in both these petitions
primarily revolves around the legal character of the Respondent-
ashram and the consequent applicability of the provisions of the
U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction)
Act, 1972, hereinafter referred to as "the Act".

26. The issue that arises for consideration is whether the
Respondent-ashram can be regarded as a public religious and
charitable institution within the meaning of Section 2(1)(bb) read
with Sections 3(r) and 3(s) of the Act, so as to be exempted from
the operation of the Rent Control law, and further, whether the
courts below were justified in arriving at such a conclusion despite
the earlier civil court finding to the contrary.

27. Section 2(1)(bb) of the Act exempts from its operation any
building belonging to or vested in a public charitable or public
religious institution. The expressions "charitable institution" and
"religious institution", as defined under Sections 3(r) and 3(s) of
the Act, require the institution to exist for the benefit of the public
and to have objects which are predominantly charitable or religious
in nature. It is thus incumbent upon the party claiming such
exemption to establish, through credible and cogent evidence, that
its dominant object and functioning are truly charitable or religious
in character. The exemption is a matter of strict construction and
cannot be presumed merely on account of occasional or incidental
acts of charity or devotion.

8
Writ Petition (M/S) No. 3627 of 2023 Gopal Krishna Jha vs. Shri 108 Pujyapad Advet Panch
Parmeshwar Panchayati Akhara Naya Udasin Kankhal connected with Writ Petition (M/S)
No. 3634 of 2023 Abhishek Jha vs. Shri 108 Pujyapad Advet Panch Parmeshwar
Panchayati Akhara Naya Udasin Kankhal
Ashish Naithani J.
2025:UHC:10055

28. In the present case, the Respondent-ashram has claimed to be
a religious and charitable institution, relying mainly on the
assertion that it participates in religious congregations and holds
bhandaras during the Kumbh and Ardh Kumbh Melas for saints
and devotees. However, there is nothing on record to indicate that
the Respondent has been recognised as a public trust or that it
possesses any trust deed, constitution, or charter evidencing such
religious or charitable status.

29. The documents produced by the Petitioners clearly show that
the Respondent is registered under the Societies Registration Act,
1860. Mere registration as a society does not, by itself, confer upon
it the status of a charitable or religious institution; the determining
factor is its dominant object and the nature of its activities. The
courts below, while accepting the plea of exemption, appear to
have been influenced mainly by general observations about the
ashram's religious activities rather than by substantive evidence of
its constitutional character or objects.

30. It is also not disputed that the issue regarding the nature of
the Respondent-ashram had earlier been directly raised and
adjudicated upon in Misc. Suit No. 62 of 2014 (Abhishek Jha and
another v. Shri 108 PujyapadAdvet Panch Parmeshwar Panchayati
Akhara Naya Udasin Kankhal). In that suit, which was instituted
under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the
plaintiffs themselves had alleged that the Respondent was a public
religious charitable trust. The Respondent, however, filed a written
statement specifically denying that character and asserted that it

9
Writ Petition (M/S) No. 3627 of 2023 Gopal Krishna Jha vs. Shri 108 Pujyapad Advet Panch
Parmeshwar Panchayati Akhara Naya Udasin Kankhal connected with Writ Petition (M/S)
No. 3634 of 2023 Abhishek Jha vs. Shri 108 Pujyapad Advet Panch Parmeshwar
Panchayati Akhara Naya Udasin Kankhal
Ashish Naithani J.
2025:UHC:10055

was merely a society registered under the Societies Registration
Act.

31. The learned District Judge, Haridwar, by judgment dated
01.12.2014, accepted that stand and held that the Respondent-
ashram was not a public religious and charitable trust. That
judgment has attained finality, as neither party challenged it before
any superior forum.

32. In these circumstances, the finding of the courts below
treating the Respondent as a charitable and religious institution
cannot be sustained in law. The principle of res judicata is clearly
attracted, as the question relating to the status of the Respondent
has already been directly and substantially in issue and finally
determined by a competent civil court.

33. Once such a determination has been made, it is binding
between the parties, and it was not open to the courts below, in
summary Small Cause Court proceedings, to reopen or contradict
that finding. The courts below, however, overlooked this binding
adjudication and embarked upon a fresh examination of the same
question, relying primarily on conjecture and without reference to
the earlier record.

34. The jurisdiction of the Judge, Small Causes Court, is limited
to determining questions of tenancy, rent, and possession, and does
not extend to adjudicating complex issues relating to the legal
status or constitution of an institution. The nature of such
proceedings is summary, and any question of ownership or
institutional character, which requires detailed examination of

10
Writ Petition (M/S) No. 3627 of 2023 Gopal Krishna Jha vs. Shri 108 Pujyapad Advet Panch
Parmeshwar Panchayati Akhara Naya Udasin Kankhal connected with Writ Petition (M/S)
No. 3634 of 2023 Abhishek Jha vs. Shri 108 Pujyapad Advet Panch Parmeshwar
Panchayati Akhara Naya Udasin Kankhal
Ashish Naithani J.
2025:UHC:10055

documents and prior adjudications, lies beyond its scope. The trial
court, in entering into the question of whether the Respondent was
a charitable or religious institution, travelled beyond its
jurisdictional competence. The revisional court, instead of
correcting this error, affirmed the findings without proper scrutiny,
thereby perpetuating the illegality.

35. While exercising powers under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India, this Court is mindful of its limited
supervisory jurisdiction and ordinarily would not interfere with
concurrent findings of fact. However, where such findings are
recorded in disregard of binding precedent, without evidence, or in
excess of jurisdiction, the supervisory power must be exercised to
prevent manifest injustice.

36. The findings of the courts below in the present case are
inconsistent with the established legal position, contrary to the
record, and suffer from perversity in approach. Both the courts
have misapplied Section 2(1)(bb) of the Act, have failed to
consider the finality of the civil court judgment dated 01.12.2014,
and have thus rendered conclusions which cannot be sustained in
law.

37. Upon an overall consideration of the material on record and
the reasoning assigned by the courts below, it is evident that the
determination of the Respondent's status as a religious and
charitable institution is legally unsound and unsupported by
evidence.

11
Writ Petition (M/S) No. 3627 of 2023 Gopal Krishna Jha vs. Shri 108 Pujyapad Advet Panch
Parmeshwar Panchayati Akhara Naya Udasin Kankhal connected with Writ Petition (M/S)
No. 3634 of 2023 Abhishek Jha vs. Shri 108 Pujyapad Advet Panch Parmeshwar
Panchayati Akhara Naya Udasin Kankhal
Ashish Naithani J.
2025:UHC:10055

38. Consequently, both the trial court and the revisional court
erred in holding that the Respondent-ashram is a public religious
and charitable institution entitled to exemption under Section
2(1)(bb) of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972. Such finding, rendered in
disregard of the binding judgment of the learned District Judge,
Haridwar, dated 01.12.2014, wherein the Respondent's status as a
registered society stood conclusively determined, cannot be
sustained in law.

39. It further appears that the courts below have travelled beyond
the limited jurisdiction vested in the Judge, Small Causes Court, by
entering into questions which properly fall within the domain of a
civil court. The summary proceedings under the Provincial Small
Cause Courts Act are not intended for adjudication of intricate
questions concerning the legal character of institutions. By
assuming such jurisdiction, the courts below acted in excess of
their authority, resulting in grave miscarriage of justice.

40. The concurrent judgments of the trial court dated 20.12.2018
and the revisional court dated 01.09.2023, therefore, suffer from
legal infirmity and cannot be sustained. They are accordingly
quashed and set aside.

ORDER

Accordingly, both these writ petitions succeed and are hereby allowed. The impugned judgments and decrees dated 20.12.2018 passed by the learned Judge, Small Causes Court/I Additional Civil Judge (S.D.), Haridwar, in S.C.C. Suit Nos. 8 of 2015 and 20 of 2014, as well as the revisional orders dated 01.09.2023 passed by

Writ Petition (M/S) No. 3627 of 2023 Gopal Krishna Jha vs. Shri 108 Pujyapad Advet Panch Parmeshwar Panchayati Akhara Naya Udasin Kankhal connected with Writ Petition (M/S) No. 3634 of 2023 Abhishek Jha vs. Shri 108 Pujyapad Advet Panch Parmeshwar Panchayati Akhara Naya Udasin Kankhal Ashish Naithani J.

2025:UHC:10055

the II Additional District Judge, Haridwar, in S.C.C. Revision Nos. 2 of 2019 and 3 of 2019, are quashed and set aside.

The matters are remanded to the trial court for reconsideration of the suits afresh in accordance with law, after affording due opportunity to the parties to lead such evidence as they may be advised, confined strictly to the issues of tenancy and arrears of rent, without reopening the already settled question regarding the status of the Respondent-ashram. The trial court shall make every endeavour to decide the suits expeditiously, preferably within a period of six months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order.

Interim orders, if any, shall stand vacated.

No order as to costs.

Ashish Naithani, J.

13.11.2025 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: 2025.11.18 15:57:03 +05'30'