Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 2846 (ALL)

Jawahar Lal v. Basant Kumar

2013-11-20

KRISHNA MURARI

body2013
JUDGMENT Krishna Murari, J.: - Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. Facts are that the petitioner moved an application under Section 30 (1) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for deposit of rent claiming himself to be a tenant of the shop in dispute. Respondent-landlord filed objection alleging that petitioner was not a tenant, inasmuch as shop was let out to one Ram Lal s/o Sheetal and he was an unauthorised occupant and, thus, was not entitled to make any deposit under Section 30 of the Act. Prescribed Authority vide order dated 07.02.2013 rejected the application holding that he was not entitled to deposit the rent. 3. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the issue as to whether he was a tenant or not, is not to be decided in summary proceedings under Section 30 of the Act and the order refusing to permit deposit holding him to be an unauthorised occupant, is illegal and without jurisdiction. 4. I have considered the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. 5. Prescribed Authority has based its finding on the judgment rendered, inter se, between the parties in Civil Appeal No. 47 of 2001, wherein it was held that the petitioner was an unauthorised occupant and not a tenant. Appeal in which the said judgment was rendered arose out of a suit filed by the present petitioner seeking a permanent injunction to restrain the landlord-respondent herein from interfering in the peaceful possession of the plaintiff alleging that he was a tenant at the rate of Rs.15/- per month. Trial court vide judgment and decree dated 26.07.2001 decreed the suit against which an appeal was preferred. Appellate court vide order dated 24.07.2004 allowed the appeal and dismissed the suit on the finding that petitioner could not possess the right of the tenant and there is no evidence of payment of rent. It is further held that although he is in possession of the shop in dispute, the same having been sub-let by tenant Ram Lal and he being a trespasser, was not entitled to any injunction. 6. It is further held that although he is in possession of the shop in dispute, the same having been sub-let by tenant Ram Lal and he being a trespasser, was not entitled to any injunction. 6. It is no doubt correct that under Section 30 of the Act, deposit can be made by any person claiming to be a tenant and the question whether the person is a tenant or not, is not to be adjudicated in these proceedings, which are summary in nature. However, in a case, where it has been conclusively held that the person is a trespasser or a sub-tenant in an unauthorised occupation over the property in dispute, he cannot be permitted to deposit rent under Section 30 of the Act. 7. In view of above facts and discussions, there is no illegality reflected from the impugned order, which may require any interference. 8. The writ petition, accordingly, fails and stands dismissed in limine.