Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 1898 (ALL)

Shakir Ali v. Shareef Khan

2016-05-16

SUNITA AGARWAL

body2016
JUDGMENT Mrs. Sunita Agarwal, J. – Heard Sri Shikhar Awasthi, learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. The orders of release under Section 21(1)(a) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 are under challenge in the petition. 3. First submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the disputed property belongs to Cantonment Board and, therefore, the release application was not maintainable in view of Section 2 (1)(a) of Act 1972. 4. To deal with this submission, the language of Clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 2 is to be taken note of. 5. A perusal of the said provision indicated that any building of which the Cantonment Board is the landlord, is exempted from the operation of the Act 1972. The definition of "Landlord" in Section 3(j) of the Act 1972 in relation to a building, means a person to whom its rent is or if the building were let, would be payable. It includes the agent or attorney or such person except in Clause (g) to whom the rent is payable. 6. Admittedly, the petitioner was inducted in the suit property by the lessee namely Hazi Mohd. Saeed. The building in question was leased out to Hazi Mohd. Saeed and after his death, it was succeeded by his two daughters namely Yasmeen Suraiya and Nikhat Khatoon. The property in question was sold to the current landlord on 10.2.2009 and thereafter he served a notice giving information about the purchase to the petitioner. The said notice was replied on 16.4.2009 by the petitioner. There is no evidence of landlord-tenant relationship between the Cantonment Board and the petitioner and, therefore, the exemption under Section 2(1)(a) of the Act 1972 would not operate. 7. Second submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that no valid title could have been passed on the vendees namely current landlord by sale deed dated 10.2.2009 as the vendor had no right to execute the sale deed with regard to a property belonging to the Cantonment Board. 8. This submission is not accepted for the reason that in a summary proceeding, the landlord-tenant relationship is to be examined by the Rent Controller Authority. The disputed property was purchased by a registered sale deed dated 10.2.2009 by the current landlord and they have been informed about the factum of sale to the petitioner. 8. This submission is not accepted for the reason that in a summary proceeding, the landlord-tenant relationship is to be examined by the Rent Controller Authority. The disputed property was purchased by a registered sale deed dated 10.2.2009 by the current landlord and they have been informed about the factum of sale to the petitioner. The sale deed which is basis of title of the current landlord is the valid sale deed and has not been cancelled by any Court of law nor any proceeding is pending in this regard. The finding on issue no. 1 recorded by the Courts below on the landlord-tenant relationship, therefore, cannot be interfered. 9. The last submission is that the disputed property came in the share of Mohd. Arif and Mohd. Asif two sons of the original landlord namely Hazi Mohd. Saeed and therefore, the vendor of sale deed dated 10.2.2009 could not have passed on a valid title to the vendees namely the current landlord. 10. This submission is wholly misconceived inasmuch as affidavit paper no. 32 was filed by these two persons namely Mohd. Arif and Mohd. Asif before the Court below to state that the disputed property was succeeded by their sisters namely Yasmeen Suraiya and Nikhat Khatoon two daughters of Hazi Mohd. Saeed. 11. No other point has been pressed. 12. Both the courts below have recorded categorical findings of fact on bona fide need and comparative hardship of the parties. 13. There is no reason to interfere. Dismissed. 14. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner may be given a reasonable time to vacate the premises in question. 15. It is, therefore, provided that: - (i) The petitioner shall file an undertaking within a period of six weeks before the Court below that he will vacate the premises in question on or before 1st February, 2017 and shall continue to pay the rent regularly to the landlord till the date of vacation of the premises in question. (ii) In case, the petitioner fails to furnish the undertaking or to vacate the premises in question within the time given above, proceeding for his eviction may be initiated.