Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 3810 (ALL)

Ashok Kumar Singh v. Ram Chander Jaiswal

2016-11-25

SUDHIR AGARWAL

body2016
JUDGMENT Sudhir Agarwal, J. -- Heard Sri Muzammil I. Qureshi, Advocate of revisionist in Revision No. 611 of 2010 and for respondent in Revision No. 65 of 2011 as well as Sri Siddharth Srivastava, Advocate for revisionists in Revision No. 65 of 2011 and for respondents in Revision No. 611 of 2010. 2. Both these matters are connected and have arisen from judgment and order dated 27.10.2010 passed by Judge, Small Cause Court no. 2, Deoria in Suit No. 8 of 2005, partly decreeing suit. It has dismissed suit so far as landlords have sought relief of ejectment of tenant from disputed premises but has decreed same for recovery of arrears of rent alongwith mesne profits. 3. Issues-1 and 2, with respect to relationship of landlord and tenant between parties and termination of tenancy by notice under Section 106 of Transfer of Property Act, 1882, have been answered in favour of landlords by Court below. Thereafter it has held that suit for eviction was not maintainable before Judge, Small Cause Court for the reason that tenant was occupying accommodation without any proper allotment under the provisions of Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act, 1972") by Rent Control and Eviction Officer (hereinafter referred to as the "RCEO") and, therefore, he was an unauthorized occupant and that be so, remedy lies to landlords to approach RCEO for declaration of vacancy and not by filing suit for ejectment. Both things are totally different. 4. In the present case suit was filed by plaintiffs-landlords on the ground of default in payment of rent under Section 20(2) of Act, 1972 and once tenant was found in default and relationship of landlord-tenant was also found, in my view, relief of ejectment could not have been denied to plaintiffs only on the ground that tenant was an unauthorized occupant of disputed premises. 5. In view thereof, Revision No. 611 of 2010 is hereby dismissed and Revision No. 65 of 2011 is allowed. Impugned judgment dated 27.10.2010 is partly modified and to the extent it denied relief of ejectment, the judgment is set aside. Suit No. 8 of 2005 is decreed with relief of ejectment also. 6. Certify this judgment to the Lower Court immediately.