Afsar Ali Khan vs Judge, Small Causes Court/Prescribed Authority and Another

Rakesh Tiwari, J.—Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record.

The Petitioner has filed this writ petition for quashing the impugned order dated 26.7.2010 passed by the Prescribed Authority/Judge Small Causes Court, Aligarh in U.P. U.B. Case No. 20 of 2000, Ali Akram Khan Shervani v. Afsar Ali Khan, whereby the application of Respondent No. 2 filed u/s 2A(5) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 was allowed directing the Petitioner to vacate and handover peaceful possession of the accommodation in dispute under his tenancy to the landlord.

Brief facts of the case are that the Petitioner is a tenant on the first floor of the building known as Pakija situated in Ward No. 4, House No. 11 (old) 18 (new) Darul Uns. Compound Dodpur, Aligarh on monthly rent of Rs. 400 since 1st January, 1993.

The dispute of the Petitioner arose with Respondent No. 3 when he asked him to increase the rent of the premises in suit from Rs. 400 per month to Rs. 1,070 per month which was refused by the tenant compelling the landlord for filing the aforesaid application for eviction of the Petitioner on the ground that he was a short term licensee and had refused to vacate the premises in question after expiry of period of the licence.

Upon receipt of notice, the Petitioner filed his written statement raising an objection that the application was not maintainable as provisions of U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 were not applicable to the building/construction in question as it being a new construction he had denied the execution of any licence deed and filing of any application before the Prescribed Authority in this regard. It was asserted by the Petitioner tenant that any signatures on the aforesaid documents were not his and were forged signatures to benefit Respondent No. 2 and that he was a tenant in the premises in suit with effect from 1.8.1993 at the rate of Rs. 400 per month. Besides aforesaid, other objections were also taken by the Petitioner in his written statement were that he had also filed an application dated 22.2.2005 specifically raising objection that the Prescribed Authority had no jurisdiction to entertain the application filed by Respondent No. 2 u/s 2A(5) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 and the same was liable to be dismissed. In support of his case that he was residing in the suit premises since 1992 the Petitioner filed documents such as Electoral roll, Income certificate, caste certificate, L.I.C. receipt, Registration for Gas installation, Receipt issued by the Water Works Department of Nagar Nigam, Aligarh and Educational documents before the Prescribed Authority.

Since the Petitioner had disputed his signatures on the documents relied upon by Respondent No. 2 for proving the licence, he filed an application for referring his signatures to the handwriting expert on which the handwriting expert was appointed who approved that the signatures of the Petitioner alleged to be on the disputed documents were not written by the Petitioner.

It is alleged by Sri M. K. Gupta, counsel for Respondent No. 2 that the Petitioner is a licensee in the aforesaid premises and he was initially given the accommodation by the landlord for a period of three months with effect from 1.5.1997 and that a written licence deed dated 30.4.1997 was jointly executed by the Petitioner with the landlord accepting the liability to pay the license fee at the rate of Rs. 1,070 per month. It is stated that the erstwhile tenant in the accommodation in dispute had vacated it in the year 1992 and he had informed the vacancy to the Rent Control Officer at that time, as such the alleged letter dated 30.4.1997 could not have been forged as is contended by the Petitioner whereby he agreed to short term licence in the accommodation for a period of three months for the reason that aforesaid letter is part of judicial record filed in Court about three years prior to filing of the release application whereas release application was filed on 27.5.2000. It is stated that there is no other evidence such as allotment letter etc. except the licence dated 30.4.1997 as to how he claims to have come into possession of the accommodation since 1992, i.e., prior to 30.4.1997, hence the contention of the Petitioner that he had not signed in the licence deed is baseless. The Petitioner had been regularly paying the rent and the same was paid up to April, 2000 but no rent receipt was issued by the landlord.

After going through the entire records and hearing the parties, the Prescribed Authority vide his order and judgment dated 26.7.2010 allowed the application filed by Respondent No. 2.

Admittedly, the Petitioner has not paid arrears of rent of the accommodation in dispute to the landlord, therefore, he cannot get the benefit of Section 30(4) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 being a defaulter is liable to be evicted. He has also not been able to show as to how he has come to occupy the premises since 1992. The documents relied upon by him only show that he had given the address of the landlord as admittedly he was at good terms with him but they cannot be taken as incorrigible proof of his legal tenancy. Counsel for the Petitioner has failed to show any illegality or infirmity in the order impugned.

For the reasons stated above, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.