Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 3879 (ALL)

Rajju @ Raja Ram v. Ramesh Kumar

2015-12-08

SUNITA AGARWAL

body2015
JUDGMENT Sunita Agarwal, J. – Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Challenging the concurrent findings recorded by both the Courts below on the issue of relationship of landlord and tenant, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the applicant has failed to prove that he is the sole owner of the disputed property. Smt. Chandan Devi is the actual owner and she had filed affidavit before the Prescribed Authority paper no.19 asserting that the disputed property came in the share of her husband under a mutual partition between the co-owners.It was also asserted in the said affidavit that Rajju alias Raja Ram was inducted by her as tenant. The release application has filed by the applicant Ramesh Kumar cannot be maintained. No evidence has been filed by Smt. Chandan Devi or the petitioner for that matter to establish that Smt. Chandan Devi is the sole owner of the property rather Municipal assessment extract for the year 1987-1992 paper no.35 of the disputed house shows that the names of both Smt. Chandan Devi and Ramesh Kumar have been recorded in the column of the owners of the building. The rent receipt in the name of Chandan Devi as owner filed by the petitioner through list 31 paper nos. 32 and 33 are of the year 2009 i.e. after filing of the release application. 3. The finding is that from the evidence on record it could not be proved that Smt. Chandan Devi is the sole owner rather evidence shows that applicant Ramesh Kumar is the co-owner of the property and rent receipts filed by the applicant also establish that the rent had been tendered to Ramesh Kumar by the petitioner. 4. Further the alternative submission is that even if the petitioner has not been able to prove that Smt. Chandan Devi is the sole owner,however since the evidence on record proves that the applicant is only a co-owner, at least this much can be inferred that Smt. Chandan Devi had objected to the release application and therefore release could not be proceeded. 5. 5. This contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted for the simple reason and in view of her objection it can not be presumed.Her contention was that the applicant is a rank outsider which could not be proved by the evidence on record.The court cannot go beyond the pleadings and draw its own inference as suggested by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 6. The ratio of India Umbrella Manufacturing Co. v. Bhagabandei Agarwalla, 2004 Law Suit (SC) 10 and Sheel Chand Jain v. Arun Kumar Tadaiy and others, 2014 (1) ARC 681 , cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner are not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the case. No benefit can be derived from the same. 7. No other point has been pressed by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner at this stage submits that the petitioner may be given a reasonable time to vacate the accommodation in order to settle his belongings. 9. To this submission learned counsel for the respondent has no objection. 10. In view of this submission, it is provided that : - 1. The petitioner shall file an undertaking in the form of an affidavit before the court below within a period of three weeks along with certified copy of the order that he shall vacate the tenanted accommodation on or before 10th June,2016. 2. In case, the petitioner fails to furnish the undertaking or handover the vacant possession within the time given above appropriate proceeding for his eviction be initiated in accordance with law. 11. With these observations, the writ petition is dismissed. Petition dismissed.