Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 993 (ALL)

Amar Singh v. Kshetriya Shri Gandhi Ashram

2015-04-27

ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA

body2015
JUDGMENT Ashwani Kumar Mishra, J. Proceedings for vacation of the premises , filed before the Judge Small Causes Court, has been decreed and a revision under Section 25 of the Act, against it, has been dismissed.Thus aggrieved, this petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 2. Learned counsel submits that the provisions of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 was applicable as there was no evidence to show that the building belong to or was vested in the Kshetriya Shri Gandhi Ashram and, therefore, the provisions of the Act of 1972 were applicable. It is also contended that all the tenants have not been issued notice under Section 106 of the Act and have also not been impleaded as party. Lastly, it is contended that there was no need of landlord for the premises in question, and, therefore, the application could not have been allowed and the proceedings were also not initiated by person having valid authorisation. 3. Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, submits that materials and evidence were produced before the courts below to prove that the premises belong to and vested in the Ashram . It is contended that the landlord was will within its right to determine the tenancy by issuing notice under Section 106 of the Act, and once it has been done, no interference is required. It is also submitted that the proceedings for eviction were initiated at the instance of the Secretary of the Ashram and, therefore, proceedings were validly instituted. 4. Having considered the respective submissions, this court finds that evidence was placed before the courts below to the effect that the proceedings have been initiated by the Secretary of the Ashram. It has also been contended that the Ashram itself is registered charitable society and the object of the society were placed on record. A notice under Section 106 of the Act was also brought on record and in view of the law settled that service of notice upon one, amounts to due service of notice upon others, notice was valid and impugned order does not suffer from any infirmity. 5. A notice under Section 106 of the Act was also brought on record and in view of the law settled that service of notice upon one, amounts to due service of notice upon others, notice was valid and impugned order does not suffer from any infirmity. 5. Having perused the orders passed by the trial court as well as revisional court, this court finds that both the courts below, upon consideration of oral and documents evidence, have come to a definite finding that the provisions of U.P. Act No.13 of 1972 are not attracted. This finding has been returned, taking note of relevant provisions, inasmuch as the petitioner has admitted that he was the tenant of the Ashram and rent was also paid to the Ashram. In the opinion of the Court, the provisions of the Act, 1972 were clearly not applicable. The findings returned by both the courts below are not shown to be perverse or erroneous which may require any interference by this Court. 6. Findings on other aspects have also been returned after taking note of the evidence available on record. It has been found that the Secretary of the Ashram was the person authorised to institute proceedings and the notice was validly sent. The findings which have been returned by both the courts do not suffer from any jurisdictional error or any perversity in the eyes of law, which may require any interference of this Court. Petition accordingly fails and is consigned to record. 7. However, as the petitioner has remained in possession over the disputed premises since long, it would be appropriate to provide that in case the petitioner files an undertaking within a month before the court concerned alongwith advance rent that he shall hand over vacant peaceful possession of the tenanted premises to the respondent upon expiry of 6 months from the date of order of the revisional court i.e. from 21.3.2015 and also deposits damages etc. petitioner shall be allowed to remain in possession during aforesaid period. In the event of failure of filing such undertaking within a period of one month from today, it would be open for the respondent to proceed with the execution of the decree, in accordance with law.