Uttarakhand High Court
Sanjay Kumar And Others ... vs Panchayati Akhada Nirmala on 7 October, 2025
2025:UHC:8851
Judgement Reserved on: 28.08.2025
Judgment Delivered on: 07.10.2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
AT NAINITAL
Writ Petition (M/S) No.24 of 2024
Sanjay Kumar and others ......Petitioners
Vs.
Panchayati Akhada Nirmala .....Respondent
Presence: Mr. Nagesh Agarwal, learned counsel for the Petitioners.
Mr. Narendra Bali, learned counsel, for the Respondent.
Hon'ble Ashish Naithani, J.
1. The present writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of
India has been filed by the Petitioners assailing the judgment and
decree dated 10.10.2013 passed by the Court of Civil Judge (Junior
Division), Haridwar in SCC Suit No. 42 of 1995, Panchayati Akhada
Nirmala v. Sanjay Kumar and Ors., and the judgment dated 14.07.2023
passed by the 1stAdditional District Judge, Haridwar in SCC Revision
No. 38 of 2013.
2. The Respondent had instituted SCC Suit No. 42 of 1995,
claiming ownership over the suit premises and seeking eviction of the
Petitioners, treating them as tenants. The Petitioners filed a Written
Statement disputing the claim and raised the plea of applicability of the
U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act,
1972 (Act No. 13 of 1972).
3. During the pendency of the proceedings, the Respondent moved
an application under Order VII Rule 10 CPC (Paper No. 130C) on
03.01.2013 to withdraw the suit with liberty to file a fresh one. The trial
1
Writ Petition No. 24 of 2024, Sanjay Kumar and OrsVsPanchayati Akhada Nirmala-
Ashish Naithani J.
2025:UHC:8851
court initially allowed the application on 10.01.2013. However, in SCC
Revision No. 06 of 2013, the revisional court on 09.07.2013 remanded
the matter to the trial court for fresh consideration of the said
application after affording opportunity to both sides.
4. Upon remand, the trial court on 10.10.2013 permitted unilateral
withdrawal of the application Paper No. 130C and decreed the suit in
favour of the Respondent. The Petitioners' subsequent SCC Revision
No. 38 of 2013 was dismissed by the 1stAdditional District Judge on
14.07.2023.
5. Learned Counsel for the Petitioners argued that the entire
proceedings culminating in the decree dated 10.10.2013 are vitiated.
The trial court acted in violation of the specific directions of the
revisional court dated 09.07.2013. Instead of reconsidering Paper No.
130C after affording hearing to both parties, the trial court permitted its
unilateral withdrawal and proceeded to decree the suit, thereby denying
the Petitioners an effective opportunity to contest the issue.
6. It was urged that the argument of the Respondent that the premise
is a "public religious and charitable institution" hence exempt under
Section 2(1)(bb) of the Act of 1972 is wholly perverse. No evidence
was adduced to establish continuous charitable or religious activity. The
mere fact of registration or occasional organization of "bhandara" at the
time of Kumbh cannot confer the character of a public charitable
institution. Reliance was placed upon the definitions of "charitable
institution" and "religious institution" under Sections 3(r) and 3(s) of
the Act, 1972.
2
Writ Petition No. 24 of 2024, Sanjay Kumar and OrsVsPanchayati Akhada Nirmala-
Ashish Naithani J.
2025:UHC:8851
7. The Petitioners also contended that the tenancy, even if admitted,
was year-to-year and could not be terminated by a notice under Section
106 of the Transfer of Property Act of 1882. The 30-day notice relied
upon by the Respondent was invalid, rendering the proceedings
unsustainable.
8. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that both courts
below failed to appreciate that the Respondent's own conductfiling
Paper No. 130C to withdraw the suit on account of defects in the plaint,
demonstrates that the plaint was not maintainable. Instead of dismissing
the suit, the trial court decreed it mechanically, ignoring the admissions
of the Respondent itself.
9. It was argued that the orders passed are cryptic, perverse, and
non-speaking, having ignored vital pleas and evidence raised by the
Petitioners. The judgments are therefore unsustainable in law and liable
to be quashed.
10. Per Contra, learned counsel for the Respondent, supported the
concurrent findings of the courts below. It was contended that the
Respondent, being a registered religious body, is exempt from the
provisions of the Rent Control Act by virtue of Section 2(1)(bb).
11. It was argued that the Respondent society, by its very constitution
and practice of organizing religious and charitable functions, falls
within the meaning of a public religious and charitable institution. The
trial court rightly recognized its character and decreed the suit.
12. Learned Counsel further submitted that the Petitioners have been
in unlawful occupation of the premises for decades. Their repeated
3
Writ Petition No. 24 of 2024, Sanjay Kumar and OrsVsPanchayati Akhada Nirmala-
Ashish Naithani J.
2025:UHC:8851
challenges are dilatory in nature and designed to defeat lawful
possession of the Respondent.
13. It was also urged that the scope of Article 227 jurisdiction is
narrow. Interference with concurrent findings of fact recorded by the
trial court and the revisional court is not warranted unless manifest
illegality or perversity is demonstrated. No such ground has been made
out in the present petition.
14. It was therefore submitted that the writ petition is misconceived
and deserves dismissal.
15. Heard learned counsel for the Parties and perused the records.
16. The record shows that the Respondent moved an application
under Order VII Rule 10 CPC (Paper No. 130C) on 03.01.2013,
acknowledging that the plaint suffered from defects and seeking liberty
to file a fresh suit. The trial court initially allowed the application on
10.01.2013. The order was set aside in SCC Revision No. 06 of 2013,
and the revisional court required the trial court to reconsider the
application after giving full opportunity of hearing to both parties.
However, instead of doing so, the trial court on 10.10.2013 permitted
unilateral withdrawal of Paper No. 130C and simultaneously decreed
the suit. Such a procedure is not only contrary to the revisional
directions but also amounts to short-circuiting the process of
adjudication.
17. The finding that the Respondent is a public religious and
charitable institution exempt under Section 2(1)(bb) of the 1972 Act
also cannot be upheld. Exemption from a beneficial statute must be
4
Writ Petition No. 24 of 2024, Sanjay Kumar and OrsVsPanchayati Akhada Nirmala-
Ashish Naithani J.
2025:UHC:8851
strictly proved. The courts below appear to have presumed the
Respondent's status solely on the basis of incidental activities such as
organizing bhandaras at the time of Kumbh. Such occasional or
customary acts do not, by themselves, establish the continuous
charitable or religious functions required to claim statutory exemption.
The definitions of "charitable institution" and "religious institution"
under the Act emphasize an element of continuity and public character.
In the absence of concrete evidence demonstrating that the Respondent
is engaged in ongoing charitable or religious work of a public nature,
the benefit of Section 2(1)(bb) cannot be extended.
18. The objection as to authorization also carries considerable
weight. The suit was signed and instituted by the Secretary of the
Respondent, whereas the Rules of the Akhada confer the authority to
institute legal proceedings upon the President. It is settled that
proceedings must be instituted by a person duly authorized under the
constitution of the body. Failure to establish such authorization vitiates
the very institution of the suit. Both the trial court and the revisional
court overlooked this basic objection, which goes to the very
maintainability of the action.
19. The Petitioners further raised the plea that the tenancy, even if
assumed, was year-to-year and incapable of being terminated by a
notice of 30 days under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act.
This issue was specifically pleaded, yet neither the trial court nor the
revisional court has recorded any finding on it. The omission to address
a material issue, once raised, constitutes a serious error of jurisdiction.
The courts were expected to frame and decide the point, particularly as
it had a direct bearing on the legality of the decree of eviction.
5
Writ Petition No. 24 of 2024, Sanjay Kumar and OrsVsPanchayati Akhada Nirmala-
Ashish Naithani J.
2025:UHC:8851
20. The record also indicates that the Respondent had previously
instituted SCC Suit No. 18 of 1987 on substantially similar grounds,
which stood dismissed in 1995. Without curing the earlier defects, the
Respondent proceeded to re-litigate the matter by filing SCC Suit No.
42 of 1995. The practice of repeated institution of proceedings without
addressing foundational infirmities undermines judicial process and
burdens both parties and the courts.
21. In supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227, this Court does not
ordinarily reappraise facts, but it is well-settled that interference is
warranted where findings are perverse, material pleas have been
ignored, or directions of a superior court have been bypassed. In the
present case, all three infirmities are evident. The trial court
disregarded the revisional directions, presumed statutory exemption
without evidence, and failed to consider crucial objections as to
authorization and validity of notice. The revisional court, instead of
correcting these errors, simply upheld them. Such concurrent findings,
when founded on misdirection in law and non-consideration of vital
issues, cannot be permitted to stand.
22. For these reasons, this Court is of the considered opinion that
both the judgment and decree dated 10.10.2013 and the revisional
judgment dated 14.07.2023 are unsustainable in law. They deserve to
be set aside, with a remand to the trial court for fresh consideration of
Paper No. 130C, in conformity with law and in compliance with the
earlier revisional directions.
ORDER
For the reasons recorded above, the writ petition is allowed.
Writ Petition No. 24 of 2024, Sanjay Kumar and OrsVsPanchayati Akhada Nirmala-
Ashish Naithani J.
2025:UHC:8851
The judgment and decree dated 10.10.2013 passed by the Court
of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Haridwar in SCC Suit No. 42 of 1995,
Panchayati Akhada Nirmala v. Sanjay Kumar and Ors., as well as the
judgment dated 14.07.2023 passed by the 1stAdditional District Judge,
Haridwar in SCC Revision No. 38 of 2013, Sanjay Kumar and Ors. v.
Panchayati Akhada Nirmala, are hereby quashed.
The matter is remanded to the trial court for fresh consideration
of Paper No. 130C (application under Order VII Rule 10 CPC) in
accordance with law and in strict compliance with the directions earlier
issued by the revisional court in judgment dated 09.07.2013.
(Ashish Naithani J.)
07.10.2025
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: 2025.10.08 14:43:30 +05'30'
Writ Petition No. 24 of 2024, Sanjay Kumar and OrsVsPanchayati Akhada Nirmala-
Ashish Naithani J.
