Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 3478 (ALL)

Jameel Ahmad v. Riyaz Ahmad

2010-11-11

RAKESH TIWARI

body2010
JUDGMENT: Rakesh Tiwari, J. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 2. This writ petition has been filed challenging the validity and correctness of the judgment and orders dated 26.11.2008 passed by Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate 4th, Kanpur Nagar/Prescribed Authority in Rent Case No. 67 of 2003 and order dated 07.09.2010 passed by Addl. District Judge, Court No. 12, Kanpur Nagar in Rent Appeal No. 04 of 2009: Jameel Ahmad vs. Riyaz Ahmad & others, appended as Annexures-5 & 8 to the writ petition. 3. The brief facts of the case are that an application under Section 21 (1) (a) of Act No. 13 of 1972 for release of the tenanted accommodation was filed by the landlord-respondent no. 1-Riyaz Ahmad. The release application was contested by the petitioner-tenant by filing written statement denying plaint allegations of the landlord-respondent. An Advocate Commissioner was appointed by the Prescribed Authority during pendency of release application, who submitted his report in the month of November, 2007. Thereafter, the evidences were adduced by the parties. Subsequently, on 26.11.2008, the Prescribed Authority allowed the release application of the landlord-respondent. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order dated 26.11.2008, the petitioner preferred Rent Appeal No. 04 of 2009: Jameel Ahmad vs. Riyaz Ahmad & others, which was dismissed by the Addl. District Judge, Court No. 12, Kanpur Nagar on 07.09.2010 after recording cogent reason. 4. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner has no alternative accommodation and plot in Vishwa Bank Colony is land hence explanation to 3rd proviso to Section 21 (1)(a) would not be attracted. Hence the contention of landlord-respondent is that the petitioner had purchased House No. A-150 Vishwa Bank Colony, Pokharpur, Kanpur Nagar in the name of his family member. It is further submitted by the petitioner that the courts below have misread the written statement filed by him in which it was categorically stated that the property mentioned at Pokharpur, Kanpur Nagar is absolutely non habitable and further his two sons who are residing in Dubai have no concern with the petitioner; that both the courts below have failed to give any finding pertaining to the categorical assertion made by the petitioner that his tenanted accommodation falls partly in the premises in question and its 1/3rd part situate in the adjoining house which has separate municipal number and not owned by the respondents. It is lastly argued by the petitioner that since release application was filed on the basis of material concealment the same is not maintainable and as such the order impugned have caused gross miscarriage of justice. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that in fact the petitioner had not purchased the land in Vishwa Bank Colony, Pokharpur, Kanpur Nagar, but it was a habitable residential accommodation with land appurtenant to which he has allegedly shown as in dilapidated condition in the sale deed to evade court fee/registration charges etc. hence the provision of Act No. 13 of 1972 would apply. 6. hence the provision of Act No. 13 of 1972 would apply. 6. The findings recorded by the trial court with regard to House No. A-150 Vishwa Bank Colony, Pokharpur, Kanpur Nagar is as under: ^^foi{kh us vius tckcnkos esa Lo;a Lohdkj fd;k gS fd mlds ikl fo'o cSad dkyksuh iks[kjiqj esa ,d [kaMgjuqek IykV gS tks fd foi{kh dh iRuh ds uke gSA foi{kh dk dFku gS fd ml ij mlus fuekZ.k ugha djk;k gS vkSj foi{kh us Lohdkj fd;k fd mlds nks iq= nqcbZ esa jgrs gSa ijUrq og nksuksa iq= foi{kh dks dksbZ Hkh vkfFkZd lgk;rk ugha djrsA foi{kh dk dFku gS fd og cgqr xjhc gS vkSj fdjk;s ij nwljk LFkku ugha ys ldrkA ;kphx.k }kjk viuh ;kfpdk esa vius ifjokj ds lnL;ksa dh la[;k nh xbZ gSA okn la0 730@03 U;k;ky; vij flfoy tt tw0fM0 dksVZ ua0 3 dkuiqj uxj esa txehy vgen }kjk fj;kt vgen vkSj lbZnk csxe dks edku ekfyd ekuk x;k gS vkSj Jh tehy vgen }kjk Lo;a dks fdjk;snkj crk;k x;kA vr% bl Lrj ij ;g ugha dgk tk ldrk fd tehy vgemn ;kphx.k dk fdjk;snkj ugha gSA tgka rd ifjokj ds lnL;ksa dh la[;k dk iz'u gS ;kphx.k }kjk viuh ;kfpdk esa Lo;a viuh iRuh lbZnk csxe] bj'kkn vgen iq= mldh iRuh esgrkc tgka] ikS=h dqekjh vue Qkfrek] iq= bj'kkn vgen i= ,tkt vgen mldh iRuh rFkk iq= 'ke'kkn vgen] fny'kkn vgen] xqytkj vgen o iq=h fjtokuk vgen ds fy;s vko';drk crk;hA fuf'pr :i ls bj'kkn vgen vkSj mldh iRuh ds fy;s ,d dejk rFkk ,tkt vgen vkSj mldh iRuh ds fy;s ,d dejs dh vko';drk gSA fj;kt vgen vkSj lbZnk csxe dh Hkh ,d dejs dh vko';drk gSA iq= 'ke'kkn] fny'kkn o xqytkj dks Hkh dze'k% ,d ,d dejs dh vko';drk gSA D;ksafd nksuksa gh fookg ;ksX; gSa iq=h fjtokuk vgen Hkh fookg ;ksX; gS vr% tc rd mldk fookg ugha gks tkrk mldks Hkh ,d dejs dh vko';drk gSA ;kph us viuh ;kfpdk esa fjgk;'k dk tks LFkku fn[kk;k gS og rhu fookfnr tksM+h vkSj pkj vfookfgr O;fDr;ksa ds fy;s fuf'pr :i ls de gSA deh'ku }kjk viuh vk[;k tks U;k;ky; esa nkf[ky dh xbZ gS mlesa Hkh ;kfpdk ds lEcU/k esa gh vk[;k nh xbZ gSA tgka rd izFke [kaM ij cuh [kijSyuqek LFkku dk iz'u gS og dejs ds :i esa ugha fxuk tk ldrkA foi{kh }kjk viuh vkifRr esa ;g Lohdkj fd;k gS fd mlds ikl IykV miyC/k gSA vr% foi{kh dks ml ij fuekZ.k djkdj jgus dh dksf'k'k djuh pkfg;s vFkok ;kfpdk nkf[ky gksus ds ckn ;kphx.k ds ifjokj dh vko';drk dks ns[krs gq;s fdjk;s ds fy;s vU; LFkku mDr rF; o fu"d"kZ ds vk/kkj ij ;kphx.k dh ;kfpdk Lohdkj fd;s tkus ;ksX; gSA** 7. It is further submitted that the petitioner at later stage, has claimed that there is no construction over the house aforesaid but it was land, hence Act No. 13 of 1972 was not applicable. It is further submitted that the petitioner at later stage, has claimed that there is no construction over the house aforesaid but it was land, hence Act No. 13 of 1972 was not applicable. The findings recorded by the appellate court is as under: ^^mijksDr rdZ ds tcko esa izR;qRrjnkrk ds fo}ku vf/koDrk }kjk rdZ izLrqr fd;k x;k] vihykFkhZ ds fo}ku vf/koDrk }kjk rF;ksa dks eksM+dj cgl dh x;h gSA fdjk;snkjh okys edku dk izR;qRrjnkrk Lokeh gks] ;g vko';d ugha gSA ;fn og edku dk yS.MykMZ gS rks edku dks [kkyh djkus dk iw.kZ vf/kdkj j[krk gS] jsUV dUV~ksy ,DV ds eqdnesa esa LokfeRo dk fofu'p; ugha gksrk gSA yS.MykMZ vkSj fdjk;snkj dk lEcU/k ;fn gS rks yS.MykMZ dks edku [kkyh djkus dk vf/kdkj izkIr gSA vihykFkhZ us ,d flfoy okn la[;k 73-@2003 tehy vgen cuke fj;kt vgen] LFkkbZ fu"ks/kkKk gsrq flfoy tt] ¼tw0fM0½ ds ;gkWa nkf[ky fd;k Fkk ftlesa mlus Lohdkj fd;k gS fd izR;qRrjnkrk fj;kt vgen fookfnr Hkou dk yS.MykmZ gSA oknh tehy vgen ds i{k esa vkns'k ikfjr fd;k tk, fd izfroknh fj;kt vgen fof/k fo:) oknh tehy vgen dks csn[ky u djsaA bl izdkj vihykFkhZ us izfroknh dks yS.MykMZ ekuk gS vkSj ewyokn la[;k 730@2003 tehy vgen cuke fj;kt vgen edku uEcj 101@115 ch ds lEcU/k esa nkf[ky fd;k x;k Fkk ftldh izekf.kr izfrfyfi dkxt la[;k 61 i=koyh ij nkf[ky dh x;h gSA bl izdkj voj U;k;ky; us vihykFkhZ dks edku dk yS.MykmZ ekudj fookfnr vkns'k ikfjr fd;k gS tks rF; ds vuq:i gSA voj U;k;ky; us mHk; i{kksa dh dfBukbZ dk ryukRed foospu fd;k gSA izR;qRrjnkrk us fookfnr edku dks [kjhnk gS] mls edku dh vko';drk gS vr% voj U;k;ky; us fookfnr vkns'k rF; ,oa fof/k ds vuq:i ikfjr fd;k gS ftlesa fdlh izdkj dh =qfV ugha gSA mHk; i{kksa ds rdksZa ds lUnHkZ esa i=koyh dk voyksdu fd;kA dkxt la[;k 61 x ewyokn la[;k 730@2003 ds voyksdu ls Li"V gS fd lu~ 2003 esa gh vihykFkhZ us izR;qRrjnkrk dks yS.MykMZ Lohdkj fd;k gS vkSj fu"ks?kkKk dk okn nkf[ky fd;k gSA vr% og vc izR;qRrjnkrk dk fdjk;snkj gksus ls badkj ugha dj ldrkA bl izdkj vfHkys[kh; lk{; ls Li"V gS fd vihykFkhZ o izR;qRrjnkrk ds chp yS.MykmZ o fdjk;snkj dk lEcU/k lkfcr gSA U;kf;d vo/kkj.kk Mk0 peu ykyk fla?ky cuke fu;r izkf/kdkjh] vij flfoy tt] ¼lh0fM0½] y[kuÅ rFkk vU; 2002 ¼1½ tslh,y vkj 500 bykgkckn esa ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky;] bykgkckn us ;g vo/kkfjr fd;k gS fd ;fn yS.MykmZ o fdjk;snkj ds lEcU/k LFkkfir gS rks csn[kyh izkFkZuk i= la/kk;Z gSA bl izdkj rF;ksa ls Li"V gS fd izR;qRrjnkrk dk csn[kyh izkFkZuk i= la/kkj.kh; gSA vihykFkhZ dk bl lEcU/k esa rdZ rF; ds vuqdwy ugha gSA vihykFkhZ dk ;g dFku fd fdjk;snkjh ds edku dk lEiw.kZ Hkkx dk Lokeh izR;qRrjnkrk ugha gS] egRoghu lkfcr gksrk gSA** 8. Learned counsel for the respondent further urged that during pendency of litigation before the court below, the petitioner has sold aforesaid accommodation in Vishwa Bank Colony, Pokharpur, Kanpur Nagar, and has purchased a flat for a sum of Rs.9,00,000/- by sale-deed dated 7.12.2009 which is appended as Annexure-S.A.3. 9. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of record it is apparent that the petitioner had not purchased only land at Pokharpur, but had habitable construction by sale deed dated 7.12.2009 in Pokharpur, Kanpur Nagar bearing House No. Block A; Yojna No. EWS-4. If the house was not habitable and there were no construction the petitioner could not have shown that there was some constructions/ruins of earlier constructions on the plot. However, he has sold the aforesaid property and vide sale deed dated 7.12.2009 has purchased a free hold land with house no. 87 LIG Colony, Block-F in Scheme No. 39, K.D.A. Colony, Kanpur Nagar having an area of 69.05 meters (covered area 40 sq. meters) for a sum of Rs.9,50,000/-. Thus, from the subsequent development, it is apparent that petitioner has now purchased a residential accommodation vide sale dated 7.12.2009. 10. Both the courts below have given concurrent findings of fact against the petitioner holding bonafide need and comparative hardship in favour of the respondent-landlord. 11. In this view of the matter and also in view of subsequent development, the Court is not inclined to interfere in the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the courts below under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 12. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. As a consequence, the petitioner is directed to handover the peaceful possession of the vacant house in question to the landlord-respondent within a period of fifteen days. No order as to costs.