Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 191 (ALL)

BANSHI LAL v. RAKESH

2011-01-27

RAKESH TIWARI

body2011
JUDGMENT Hon’ble Rakesh Tiwari, J.—Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. This writ petition has been filed challenging the validity and correctness of the judgment and order dated 11.11.2010 passed by the Additional District Judge, Court No. 10, Kanpur Nagar as well as orders dated 30.6.2006 and 23.12.2005 passed by Additional District Magistrate (Supply), Kanpur Nagar, appended as Annexures-6,4 and 3 respectively to the writ petition. 2. The petitioner has also prayed for a writ of certiorari for quashing the aforesaid orders as well as for a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents restraining them from dispossessing him from room in dispute bearing No. 112/82-A, Bena Jhabar, Sarup Nagar, Kanpur Nagar. 3. The claim of the petitioner is that the landlord of house No. 112/82-A situated in Bena Jhabar, Swaroop Nagar Kanpur Nagar was one Girdhar Prasad in which one Smt. Asharfi Devi was tenant of one room and Chhedi Lal was tenant of two rooms. According to him, Smt. Asharfi Devi vacated the tenanted room which was let out to the petitioner with the consent of the landlord prior to 1963; that thereafter Girdhari Lal expired and Chhedi Lal moved an application before the Additional District Magistrate (Supply) /Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Kanpur Nagar for declaring vacancy of one room under the occupation and possession of the petitioner, claiming himself to be the landlord of the aforesaid portion. 4. After the premises was inspected by the Inspector, the A.D.M. (Supply) by order dated 23.12.2005 declared vacancy and fixed 12.1.2006 for release/allotment of the accommodation in dispute. Aggrieved by this order the petitioner moved the Court by filing a recall application dated 2.1.2006 under Section 34 Rule 22F of Act No. 13 of 1972. The aforesaid application was rejected by the Court of Additional District Magistrate (Supply), Kanpur Nagar vide order dated 30.6.2006 on the ground that petitioner ought to have approached the High Court in the matter once the vacancy was declared for challenging the order declaring the vacancy. 5. Thereafter, the petitioner filed Rent Revision No. 32 of 2006 before the District Judge, Kanpur Nagar on 6.7.2006, which too was rejected by the Additional District Judge, Court No. 10, Kanpur Nagar vide order dated 11.10.2010. 6. 5. Thereafter, the petitioner filed Rent Revision No. 32 of 2006 before the District Judge, Kanpur Nagar on 6.7.2006, which too was rejected by the Additional District Judge, Court No. 10, Kanpur Nagar vide order dated 11.10.2010. 6. In these circumstances it is argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner is tenant of the room in dispute since 1963 and as there was a dispute between Chhedi Lal regarding title of the disputed accommodation with Giridhar Prasad. It is submitted that it cannot be said that the petitioner is not a lawful tenant of the accommodation in dispute and that the Courts below have not committed any illegality or an error apparent on the face of record and in law in ignoring this aspect of the matter by passing order of ejectment against the petitioner. 7. It appears from the impugned orders that on the basis of rent receipts issued by Giridhar Prasad filed by the petitioner and on the basis of the evidence the Courts below have come to the conclusion that Giridhar Prasad was not the landlord. Since there was a dispute pending between Giridhar Prasad and Chhedi Lal regarding question of ownership which later on has been settled in favour of Chhedi Lal. It has also been noted by the Court that the Municipal record has thereafter been rectified and the name of Chhedi Lal has been recorded as owner over the disputed portion in the municipal record. In these facts and circumstances, Giridhar Prasad could not vest the tenant petitioner with any legal right on the basis of rent receipts issued by him nor his consent would make the petitioner as lawful tenant in the accommodation in dispute. The Courts below have rightly come to the conclusion that the petitioner was a Sikami or a sub-tenant. Since he was not a lawful tenant, he has no right of tenant as such in the accommodation in dispute. There is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned orders passed by the Courts below. 8. For the reasons stated above, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. 9. A copy of this order be sent to the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Kanpur Nagar for compliance. —————