[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Uttarakhand High Court
Yashpal Goswami (Since Deceased) vs Smt. Shivkumari And Another on 11 February, 2026
2026:UHC:763
Judgment Pronounced on 11.02.2026
Judgment Reserved on: 18.11.2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Writ Petition (M/S) No.2981 of 2025
Yashpal Goswami (since Deceased)
through its legal heir Kshitij Bali ......Petitioner
Vs.
Smt. Shivkumari and Another .....Respondents
Presence- Mr. Vikas Kumar Guglani, learned counsel for the Petitioner.
Mr. Siddhartha Singh and Mr. Nikhil Singhal, learned counsel for the
Respondents/Caveator.
Hon'ble Ashish Naithani, J.
1. The present writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of
India arises out of proceedings initiated as Khafifa Suit No. 11 of 2011,
instituted before the Judge Small Cause Court and Civil Judge (Junior
Division), Haridwar, by the Respondents seeking eviction, arrears of
rent and damages in respect of premises situated at Khilandi Bai
Dharamshala, Bada Bazar, Haridwar.
2. The original defendant, Yashpal Goswami, was admittedly in
occupation of the suit premises as a tenant. During the pendency of
proceedings, he expired and is now represented through his legal heir,
the present Petitioner.
3. The case of the Respondents before the Trial Court was that the
suit property belongs to Khilandi Bai Dharamshala, which, according to
them, is a public charitable and religious trust. On that basis, it was
pleaded that the provisions of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 are not
applicable to the suit property.
1
Writ Petition M/S No.2981 of 2025--------Yashpal Goswami (since Deceased) through his legal heir Kshitij
Vs. Smt. Shivkumari and Another
Ashish Naithani J.
2026:UHC:763
4. It was alleged that the Petitioner was a tenant at a monthly rent of
₹15, later claimed to be ₹45 per month, and that arrears of rent were
due for the period from 01.01.1991 to 30.09.2011. A legal notice dated
07.10.2011 was stated to have been issued terminating the tenancy and
demanding arrears.
5. The Petitioner contested the suit by filing a written statement
denying the existence of any public charitable or religious trust.
Reliance was placed upon a Will dated 25.09.1917 executed by Smt.
Khilandi Bai, contending that the said Will did not create any trust but
merely made arrangements for management of a Dharamshala, with
specified persons appointed as joint managers.
6. It was further pleaded that the suit was instituted by the
Respondents in their individual capacity, without authority and without
impleading all persons designated as managers under the Will,
rendering the suit bad for non-joinder of necessary parties.
7. The Petitioner also asserted that rent had been duly paid and
deposited, including payment through bank draft and money order, and
that no arrears were legally recoverable.
8. Upon trial, the Trial Court framed issues, including issues relating
to the applicability of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972, termination of
tenancy, arrears of rent and entitlement to eviction.
9. By judgment dated 11.02.2021, the Trial Court recorded findings
on certain issues in favour of the Petitioner, including a finding that the
suit property was not being used for a public charitable purpose and that
2
Writ Petition M/S No.2981 of 2025--------Yashpal Goswami (since Deceased) through his legal heir Kshitij
Vs. Smt. Shivkumari and Another
Ashish Naithani J.
2026:UHC:763
the provisions of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 were applicable. Despite
such findings, the Trial Court decreed eviction against the Petitioner.
10. Aggrieved, the Petitioner preferred Khafifa Revision No. 04 of
2021 before the Judge Small Cause Court and First Additional District
Judge, Haridwar. The Revisional Court, by judgment dated 17.09.2025,
dismissed the revision and affirmed the decree of eviction.
11. The present writ petition has been filed assailing both the
aforesaid judgments.
12. Learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that the impugned
judgments suffer from patent illegality and jurisdictional error. It was
argued that once the Trial Court itself held that the provisions of the
U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 are applicable, the Small Cause Court could
not have decreed eviction dehors the statutory scheme.
13. It was submitted that the Trial Court returned a categorical
finding that the suit property is not governed by any public charitable or
religious trust, thereby negativing the very foundation on which
exemption from the Rent Control Act was claimed.
14. Learned counsel further argued that the Trial Court also held that
the tenancy was not validly terminated, and therefore, in absence of a
valid termination, a decree for eviction was legally impermissible.
15. It was urged that the findings recorded by the Trial Court are
internally inconsistent and self-destructive, and the Revisional Court
failed to address these fundamental contradictions.
3
Writ Petition M/S No.2981 of 2025--------Yashpal Goswami (since Deceased) through his legal heir Kshitij
Vs. Smt. Shivkumari and Another
Ashish Naithani J.
2026:UHC:763
16. Learned counsel further submitted that the Respondents instituted
the suit in their individual capacity without establishing ownership,
trusteeship or authority under the Will dated 25.09.1917, and without
impleading all joint managers contemplated therein.
17. It was also contended that questions relating to title and trust
could not have been finally adjudicated in Small Cause jurisdiction, and
the courts below exceeded their jurisdiction in doing so.
18. Learned counsel for the Respondents supported the impugned
judgments and submitted that the Trial Court and Revisional Court have
concurrently held against the Petitioner, and such concurrent findings
ought not to be interfered with in supervisory jurisdiction.
19. It was argued that the Respondents were entitled to institute the
suit and that sufficient material existed on record to justify the decree of
eviction.
20. Learned counsel further submitted that the scope of interference
under Article 227 is limited and does not permit re-appreciation of
evidence or substitution of findings.
21. This Court is conscious of the limited and supervisory nature of
jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Interference
is not warranted merely because another view is possible. However,
where subordinate courts commit a patent error of jurisdiction, record
findings which are mutually destructive, or act in disregard of settled
legal principles, supervisory correction becomes imperative.
4
Writ Petition M/S No.2981 of 2025--------Yashpal Goswami (since Deceased) through his legal heir Kshitij
Vs. Smt. Shivkumari and Another
Ashish Naithani J.
2026:UHC:763
22. From a careful examination of the judgment dated 11.02.2021
passed by the Trial Court, it is evident that the Court framed specific
issues relating to the applicability of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 and
the nature of the suit property.
23. The Trial Court recorded a categorical finding that the suit
property was not being used for the purposes of a public charitable or
religious trust and, consequently, that the provisions of the U.P. Act No.
13 of 1972 were applicable to the premises in question.
24. Once such a finding was returned, the legal consequence
inexorably followed that eviction of a tenant could only be sought and
granted in accordance with the statutory scheme under the U.P. Act No.
13 of 1972, subject to the conditions and protections provided therein.
25. Despite the aforesaid finding, the Trial Court proceeded to decree
eviction against the Petitioner in exercise of Small Cause jurisdiction,
without reference to any statutory ground under the U.P. Act No. 13 of
1972 and without adherence to the procedure contemplated thereunder.
26. The Trial Court further returned a finding that the tenancy of the
defendant had not been validly terminated by the notice dated
07.10.2011. Having held that the tenancy was not lawfully terminated,
the decree of eviction could not have been sustained even on general
principles governing landlord tenant relationship.
27. The findings recorded by the Trial Court, therefore, stand in direct
conflict with the relief ultimately granted. The decree of eviction is
irreconcilable with the Court's own conclusions on the applicability of
the Rent Control legislation and the validity of termination of tenancy.
5
Writ Petition M/S No.2981 of 2025--------Yashpal Goswami (since Deceased) through his legal heir Kshitij
Vs. Smt. Shivkumari and Another
Ashish Naithani J.
2026:UHC:763
28. Such internal inconsistency goes to the root of the jurisdiction
exercised by the Trial Court and cannot be treated as a mere error of
appreciation of evidence.
29. The Revisional Court, while exercising jurisdiction in Khafifa
Revision No. 04 of 2021, was duty bound to examine whether the
decree passed by the Trial Court suffered from jurisdictional infirmity
or legal perversity.
30. A perusal of the revisional judgment dated 17.09.2025 reveals
that the Revisional Court affirmed the decree without addressing the
fundamental contradiction between the findings recorded and the relief
granted by the Trial Court.
31. The Revisional Court failed to examine the legal consequence of
the Trial Court's finding that the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 was
applicable, and did not advert to the settled position that eviction dehors
the statutory framework is impermissible once such applicability is
affirmed.
32. The Revisional Court also did not deal with the issue arising from
the Trial Court's finding that the tenancy was not validly terminated,
which finding strikes at the very maintainability of the eviction decree.
33. The approach adopted by both courts below reflects a clear
jurisdictional error, inasmuch as the courts proceeded to grant relief in a
manner contrary to their own findings and contrary to the governing
statutory regime.
6
Writ Petition M/S No.2981 of 2025--------Yashpal Goswami (since Deceased) through his legal heir Kshitij
Vs. Smt. Shivkumari and Another
Ashish Naithani J.
2026:UHC:763
34. This Court also finds substance in the contention that the courts
below travelled beyond the permissible limits of Small Cause
jurisdiction by recording findings which effectively touch upon
questions relating to title, trust character and authority, which could not
have been conclusively adjudicated in such proceedings.
35. The cumulative effect of the aforesaid infirmities demonstrates
that the impugned judgments are vitiated by errors apparent on the face
of the record and by jurisdictional transgression, attracting the
supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India.
ORDER
36. The writ petition is allowed.
37. The judgment and order dated 17.09.2025 passed by the Judge
Small Cause Court and First Additional District Judge, Haridwar in
Khafifa Revision No. 04 of 2021, as well as the judgment and decree
dated 11.02.2021 passed by the Judge Small Cause Court and Civil
Judge (Junior Division), Haridwar in Khafifa Suit No. 11 of 2011, are
hereby set aside.
38. The matter is remitted to the Trial Court for fresh consideration in
accordance with law, keeping in view the applicability of the U.P. Act
No. 13 of 1972 and the findings recorded herein.
39. There shall be no order as to costs.
(Ashish Naithani J.)
11.02.2026
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: 2026.02.11 17:04:03 +05'30'
Writ Petition M/S No.2981 of 2025--------Yashpal Goswami (since Deceased) through his legal heir Kshitij
Vs. Smt. Shivkumari and Another
Ashish Naithani J.
