JUDGMENT (Delivered by Hon'ble Attau Rahman Masoodi, J.) 1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel who has put in appearance on behalf of respondents. 2. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 30.11.2010 passed by the District Magistrate Raebareli whereby the lease hold rights of the petitioner in respect of the disputed Nazul property have been withdrawn and resultantly the petitioner's tenancy stands frustrated notwithstanding the fact that the lease was renewed in favour of the petitioner on19.08.2000 for a further period of thirty years i.e. up to the year 2027 on a lease rent of a sum of Rs. 120/- per annum. 3. Factual background of the case in brief is that two Nazul plots situated in the urban area of District Raebareli measuring 5 Bigha 2 Biswa bearing plot nos. 2404 and 2405 were leased out to Late Himansu Dhar Singh Talukedar of Tekari while being under the guardianship of Tej Bhan Singh, Rais of Tekari, District Raebareli for a period of thirty years on 01.04.1937 at an annual lease rent of Rs. 20/-, subject to renewal for an aggregate period of 90 years in two consecutive terms of thirty years. The period of thirty years on coming to an end on 31.03.1967, the lease was further renewed for a period of thirty years on 22.08.1967 w.e.f. 01.04.1967 i.e. up to 31.03.1997 at an enhanced lease rent at the rate of Rs. 30/- per annum. 4. It is averred in the writ petition that as per the family settlement in the year 1972 which was duly decreed in Regular Suit No. 574 of 1972, the aforesaid property was earmarked in the exclusive share of the petitioner and on the basis of civil court orders/judgement the name of the petitioner was mutated in the relevant records on 31.05.1988 as is evident from annexure no. 6 to the writ petition. 5. The petitioner just before six months of the expiry of lease, on 31.03.1997 again applied for renewal of lease and formalities for this purpose were duly complied with by him as prescribed in the original lease deed. 6. It is seen that the rental value of the Nazul lease land was enhanced to Rs. 120/- per annum and accordingly the lease was approved to be renewed in favour of the petitioner on 19.08.2000 by the Collector, Raebareli. 7. 6. It is seen that the rental value of the Nazul lease land was enhanced to Rs. 120/- per annum and accordingly the lease was approved to be renewed in favour of the petitioner on 19.08.2000 by the Collector, Raebareli. 7. The premises in question whereupon a house was built after grant of original lease was let out to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Raebareli since long during the life time of petitioner's father on a nominal rent of Rs. 100/- and in the absence of any pressing need, the land lord-tenant relationship between the parties remained quite cordial. 8. It appears that due to the expansion of petitioner's family the petitioner seems to have urged the respondent no. 5 i.e. Senior Superintendent of Police, Raebareli to handover vacant possession of the premises in question on account of which the entire situation came to be manipulated to his disadvantage and ultimately the impugned order has come to be passed. 9. The petitioner approached this Court previously by filing a Writ Petition No. 2065 (M/B) of 2006 which was disposed of by order dated 08.10.2010 directing the District Magistrate Raebareli to decide the petitioner's fresh representation within a stipulated period of one month but after giving due opportunity of hearing to the parties. 10. The impugned order has come to be passed in compliance of the previous order passed by this Court on 08.10.2010 in the aforesaid writ petition. 11. The present writ petition was filed in the month of February, 2011 and came up for admission on 22.02.2011 when this Court was pleased to passed an interim order which reads as under: - "Notice on behalf of respondents has been accepted by learned Chief Standing Counsel, who prays for and is allowed three weeks' time to file counter affidavit. Prima facie, we are satisfied that the building was let out for which rent was also fixed. Admittedly, vide order dated 23.7.1997, the rent was fixed but the same has not been deposited. We therefore, provide as an interim measure that the entire arrears of rent as directed in the order dated 23.7.1997, shall be deposited within a period of two months and the monthly rent shall be deposited regularly with this court within first seven days of every month. The deposit so made shall be subject to the final decision of this petition. The deposit so made shall be subject to the final decision of this petition. We further stay the operation and implementation of the impugned order dated 30.11.2010." 12. The aforesaid order came to be challenged before the Apex Court by the respondent in SLP (Civil) No. 34275 of 2011but the same was dismissed by order dated 05.12.2011 with a request to the High Court for disposal of writ petition expeditiously and preferably within six months. 13. The matter does appear to have been listed constantly but for some reason or the other, the same could not be decided. From the order sheet placed on record it is difficult to ascertain the cause of delay and attribute it to any of the contesting parties in particular. 14. However, the record shows that the interim order dated 22.02.2011 has been complied with and the rent has been deposited in this Court continuously out of which a sum of Rs. 5, 00,000/- (five lacs) was permitted to be released in favour of the respondent no. 5 for carrying out some repair work as is evident from the order dated 24.02.2014 reproduced below: - "This matter has been expedited by the Apex Court vide order dated 05.12.2011. Against the order dated 30.11.2010 passed by the District Magistrate, whereby it has been held that the petitioner has lost all its right as regard the land and building, the petitioner has preferred the instant writ petition. This Court, while entertaining the writ petition, observed that prima facie, it is established that the building was let out for which rent was also fixed. This Court passed an ad interim order dated 22.2.2011, directing that the entire arrears of rent as directed in the order dated 23.7.1997 shall be deposited within two months and the monthly rent shall also be deposited regularly with this Court within first seven days of every month. From the record, it comes out that around Rs.25 Lacs have been deposited by the respondents. It is also comes out from the record that earlier against the judgment and order dated 22.2.2011 passed in writ petition No. 1775 (M/B) of 2011, the State Government has went to the Apex Court but the Apex Court dismissed the SLP filed by the State Government. During the course of arguments, Counsel for the respondents has submitted that the building is in very dilapidated condition and needs urgent repairs. During the course of arguments, Counsel for the respondents has submitted that the building is in very dilapidated condition and needs urgent repairs. It has also been stated that the petitioner is not interested in getting the necessary repairs done in the building. Therefore, it has been suggested that some amount from the amount, which has been deposited in this Court, may be released so that necessary repairs may be done to keep the building intact. Considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, Registry is directed to release Rs.5 Lacs to the respondents for the purposes of repairing of the building. The opposite parties shall file a bill in respect of the repairs and other expenses. The opposite parties are further directed to deposit the upto date rent, as directed earlier. List this case in the month of April, 2014." 15. The matter was argued on 23.11.2015 by the learned Counsel for the parties on the validity of the impugned order dated 30.11.2010 whereby the lease hold rights of the petitioner have been taken away on the strength of reasons assigned in the impugned order dated 30.11.2010 and judgment was reserved. 16. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has urged that the lease hold rights under a renewable lease subsist and have wrongly been taken away by the District Magistrate i.e. respondent no. 1 on the basis of reasoning and justification assigned in the impugned order. 17. It is further urged that once the lease was renewed twice for its full tenure as originally stipulated and the terms complied with, it was not open to the District Magistrate to have passed the impugned order affecting the petitioner's rights for seeking possession of the said property in accordance with law. 18. It is also urged that the petitioner has not indulged into any violation of the lease deed and therefore the alleged subletting of the property to none else but functionaries of government does not stand in violation of any of the covenants of lease deed, therefore, the impugned order passed by the District Magistrate proceeds on a wrong premise. 19. It is also urged that the petitioner has not indulged into any violation of the lease deed and therefore the alleged subletting of the property to none else but functionaries of government does not stand in violation of any of the covenants of lease deed, therefore, the impugned order passed by the District Magistrate proceeds on a wrong premise. 19. Learned Standing Counsel on the other hand has argued that the petitioner having indulge into subletting of the property has committed a breach of the lease deed which of course entitles the District Magistrate to pass the impugned order more particularly when the renewal of lease on the due date was not carried out and thereafter was wrongfully done in the year 2000. 20. On a close scrutiny of the impugned order we find that the District Magistrate while dealing with the controversy framed four issues for consideration. 21. The first issue was framed as to whether the petitioner was a lawful and actual lessee of the Nazul property or not. 22. The second issue related to the compliance of the terms of lease or their violation if any. 23. The third issue was framed as to the consequence of violation of the conditions of lease. 24. The fourth issue was in relation to some correspondence being made by the Principal Secretary, Department of Home to the Director General of Police for acquisition of the said land. 25. So far as the issue no. 1 is concerned, it relates to the lawful continuity of petitioner's lease after the expiry of lease period as on 31.03.1997. The exercise of renewal is alleged to have been undertaken by suppression of facts. It is also recorded that the petitioner failed to deposit the lease rent, therefore, the renewal of lease from the year 1997 onwards became automatically inoperative. 26. From the analysis of the reasoning assigned in the order on issue no. 1, we find that the petitioner had duly applied for renewal of lease on fulfilling the necessary conditions and his application for renewal was not rejected on any ground whatsoever. The said application was not dealt with timely in accordance with law for no fault on the part of the petitioner but for the reasons best known to the respondents. 1, we find that the petitioner had duly applied for renewal of lease on fulfilling the necessary conditions and his application for renewal was not rejected on any ground whatsoever. The said application was not dealt with timely in accordance with law for no fault on the part of the petitioner but for the reasons best known to the respondents. However, the lease came to be renewed on 19.8.2000 delay whereof cannot be attributed to the petitioner and once the renewal was approved by the then District Magistrate, it continued the lease hold rights in favour of the petitioner. 27. It is noticed that the District Magistrate himself had rather enhanced the rental value of the premises leased out to respondent no. 5 which was fixed at Rs. 16124.44 per month by letter dated 22.07.1999 and thereafter the lease itself was said to have been renewed up to the year 2027 by letter dated 24.08.2000, therefore, the reason that the lease was renewed by the competent authority on the alleged suppression of fact is clearly baseless particularly when the name of the petitioner was mutated in place of his father on the basis of a judicial order as back as in the year 1988. The non-disclosure of particulars of other co-sharers as alleged in the impugned order to be suppression of facts is extraneous and legally unsustainable particularly when there was no complaint by any co-sharer after the death of petitioner's father, hence the findings recorded on issue no. 1 are perverse. 28. The second issue which relates to the alleged violation of the terms of lease also does not appear to be based on any cogent reason. The property was sub-let to the government functionary namely the Superintendent of Police for residential purpose since long which impliedly was never viewed to be a violation but such an objection has surfaced when the petitioner made a request for delivering him the vacant possession of the lease hold property. The letting out was throughout in the knowledge of district authorities who themselves had enhanced and fixed the rent at Rs. 16124.44 immediately prior to the renewal of lease on 19.8.2000 up to 2027. The premises was admittedly in the occupation of succeeding Superintendent of Police of Rae Bareilly for long. 29. The letting out was throughout in the knowledge of district authorities who themselves had enhanced and fixed the rent at Rs. 16124.44 immediately prior to the renewal of lease on 19.8.2000 up to 2027. The premises was admittedly in the occupation of succeeding Superintendent of Police of Rae Bareilly for long. 29. In our considered opinion dwelling purpose does not appear to have been violated which was rather acknowledged and regulated by the district authorities. The petitioner or his predecessor do not appear to have been ever put to notice of any such alleged violation in the past. 30. The question of permission would only arise if the premises was used for a purpose other than dwelling. Interestingly the premises was under the tenancy of Senior Superintendent of Police, Raebareli and no such objection was ever raised by the authorities at the time of earlier renewal and during all these years. Once the District Magistrate himself had fixed the rent and approved the lease for renewal, it is wrong to say that the District Magistrate carried out the process being oblivious of the alleged sub-tenancy. The finding recorded in the impugned order is a complete afterthought and a mala fide excuse which in our view does not justify the impugned action. 31. The third issue justifying reversion of lease hold property in favour of the respondents is also misconceived for the reason that the application of the petitioner for renewal was duly filed, considered and approved for renewal upto 2027. The delay on the part of the respondents as regards grant of renewal itself does not lend any valid support to the stand of respondents and any such assumption that delayed renewal automatically brings the lease hold rights of the petitioner to an ending our view, having far reaching consequences, is unacceptable. 32. As far as issue no. 4 is concerned, it is clear from the material placed on record that no such acquisition has materialised till date, therefore, the reason assigned is inconsequential. In the totality of circumstances, the lease hold rights which are to be continued in terms of the original leased deed, on the mere violation as alleged can not be said to have terminated. The impugned order passed by the District Magistrate respondent no. 1, is clearly illegal and arbitrary and the same cannot be allowed to stand. 33. In the totality of circumstances, the lease hold rights which are to be continued in terms of the original leased deed, on the mere violation as alleged can not be said to have terminated. The impugned order passed by the District Magistrate respondent no. 1, is clearly illegal and arbitrary and the same cannot be allowed to stand. 33. In the result, the writ petition succeeds on the first relief. The impugned order dated 30.11.2010 is hereby set aside. 34. The rent deposited before this Court is allowed to be withdrawn by the petitioner subject to the adjustment of amount already released in favour of the respondent no. 5 for repair work. The same shall be released forthwith. 35. So far as the relief for possession is concerned, it is open to the petitioner to invoke the appropriate remedy before the Prescribed Authority under the Rent Control Act to be delivered to the petitioner. 36. The writ petition is accordingly allowed.