Kamlesh Kumar vs Virendra Kumar

Manoj Misra, J.—Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.

The present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed challenging an order dated 19th January, 2017, passed by Additional District Judge/Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Jhansi in Rent Control Appeal No.24 of 2015, by which application 21 C2 filed by the petitioner for taking additional evidence in the shape of an order dated 10th August, 2015 passed in proceeding under Section 30(1) of U.P. Act No.13 of 1972, has been rejected.

The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the order dated 10th August, 2015, which was sought to be brought on record by way of an additional evidence, was passed on the same day on which the order allowing the release application filed by the landlord-respondent, under Section 21 (1)(a) of the U.P Act No.13 of 1972, was passed. Therefore, the petitioner could not have brought the said order on record while the proceedings were pending in the lower Court hence the said order dated 10th August, 2015 ought to have been taken on record by way of additional evidence in the appellate proceeding. It has been submitted that the order was relevant because the petitioner was not permitted to deposit the rent inasmuch as he failed to demonstrate that he was tenant which would go to show that there was no landlord-tenant relationship so as to make application under Section 21(1) (a) of U.P. Act No.13 of 1972 maintainable.

I have perused the order passed by the Court below. The prayer of the petitioner to adduce additional evidence has been rejected not on the ground that the said document could have been produced during the course of proceeding pending before the Prescribed Authority but on the ground that it had no relevance, inasmuch as, the proceeding under Section 30 (1) of U.P. Act No.13 of 1972 is miscellaneous in nature and any order passed therein does not govern the rights of the parties unless it relates to question of default in payment of rent. Since the proceeding under Section 21 (1)(a) of U.P. Act No.13 of 1972 is based on the need of the landlord for the accommodation in question, whether the tenant is in default or not is completely irrelevant. In so far as the relevance of the document to negate landlord-tenant relationship is concerned, the Court below found that the same was not disputed in the proceeding in question therefore that aspect cannot be taken at the appellate stage.

I find no legal error in the order passed by the Court below because the proceeding under Section 21 (1)(a) of U.P. Act No.13 of 1972 is based on the need of the landlord. Whether the tenant is a defaulter or not would not be relevant in those proceedings and since the proceeding under Section 30 (1) of U.P. Act No.13 of 1972 is miscellaneous in nature therefore any observation made in the order passed in those proceeding would not be binding on the regular side in proceeding under Section 21 (1)(a) of U.P. Act No.13 of 1972. Further, from the order of the Prescribed Authority dated 10th August, 2015, which is on record as Annexure-1 to the petition, it appears that the petitioner had admitted that his father was the tenant and on his death the shop in dispute came to him. The Court below has also observed that in the proceedings, out of which the appeal had arisen, the petitioner had admitted himself to be tenant therefore the question of denying landlord-tenant relationship at the stage of appeal did not arise. The said finding has not been challenged by demonstrating the same to be perverse or contrary to the record.

Under the circumstances, I do not find any good reason to interfere with the order passed by the Court below. The petition is dismissed.