SANGRAM SINGH CHAUDHARY vs MUSHARF ALI ANSARI

Manoj K. Tiwari, J. (Oral)

Petitioner is a tenant against whom an application for release of the accommodation in question has been filed by the landlord. In the present writ

petition, following reliefs have been sought:-

a) To quash/set-aside the entire proceedings of Rent Case No. 06/2013 (Musharf Ali Ansari vs. Sangram Singh Chaudhary) under section 21 (1) (a)

of The Uttar Pradesh Urban Building (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act 1972 (Act No. 13 of 1972) pending in the court of learned

Prescribed Authority/Civil Judge (S.D.) Pauri Garhwal.

b) To quash/set-aside the impugned judgment and order dated 07.02.2017 passed by the learned trial court/prescribed Authority/Civil Judge (Senior

Devision) Pauri Garhwal, whereby, the application of the respondent/landlord has been accepted and the supplementary affidavit of the

petitioner/tenant has been accepted only to the extent by which the typographical mistakes have been cured and rest of the part has been ousted from

the record, filed as Annexure No.-11.

c) To quash/set-aside the judgment and order dated 26.03.2018 passed by the learned District Judge, Pauri Garhwal in Civil Revision No. 01/2017

(Sangram Singh Chaudhary vs. Musharf Ali Ansari), whereby, the revision preferred by the petitioner/tenant has been dismissed, filed as Annexure

No.-13.Â

Petitioner contested the release application by filing a written statement. Subsequently, he filed an application 57(ga) seeking permission to file

supplementary affidavit for bringing on record certain documents and also for correcting typing mistakes in the affidavit earlier filed by him. The said

application was allowed by learned Prescribed Authority vide order dated 02.08.2016, subject to payment of cost of Rs. 200 and permission was

granted to the petitioner to file supplementary affidavit bringing on record certain documents mentioned in para-1 of his application and also for

correcting the typing mistakes in his affidavit.

Petitioner, thereafter, filed a supplementary affidavit running into 14 paragraphs. The respondent objected to filing of such supplementary affidavit

on the ground that petitioner cannot be permitted to develop a new case through supplementary affidavit by filing an objection (74 ga). Learned

Prescribed Authority vide order dated 07.02.2017 allowed the objection of the respondent and held that petitioner’s supplementary affidavit shall

be read in evidence only to the extent of correction of typing mistakes. Petitioner thereafter filed a revision which was numbered as Civil Revision No.

01 of 2017, which was dismissed by learned District Judge, Pauri Garhwal vide judgment and order dated 26.03.2018. Both these orders have been

challenged in the writ petition.

I have gone through the impugned orders. Learned courts below have given cogent reasons in support of the orders impugned in the writ petition.

Since petitioner was trying to develop a new case through supplementary affidavit in disregard of the order passed by the Prescribed Authority on

02.08.2016, therefore, the subsequent order dated 07.02.2017 passed by Prescribed Authority cannot be faulted. Learned Revisional Court, which

affirmed Prescribed Authority’s order dated 07.02.2017 is, therefore, justified.

Petitioner has raised an issue regarding maintainability of release application in view of the bar created by proviso to Section 21 (1)(a) of U.P. Act

No. 13 of 1972. Section 21(1) (a) alongwith its proviso is extracted below:

“21. Proceedings for release of building under occupation of tenant.â€" (1) The prescribed authority may, on an application of the landlord in that

behalf, order the eviction of a tenant from the building under tenancy or any specified part thereof if it is satisfied that any of the following grounds

exists namelyâ€

(a) that the building is bona fide required either in its existing form or after demolition and new construction by the landlord for occupation by himself

or any member of his family, or any person for whose benefit it is held by him, either for residential purposes or for purposes of any profession, trade

or calling, or where the landlord is the trustee of a public charitable trust, for the objects of the trust;

(b) that the building is in a dilapidated condition and is required for purposes of demolition and new construction:

Provided that where the building was in the occupation of a tenant since before its purchase by the landlord, such purchase being made after the

commencement of this Act, no application shall be entertained on the grounds, mentioned in clause (a), unless a period of three years has elapsed

since the date of such purchase and the landlord has given a notice in that behalf to the tenant not less than six months before such application, and

such notice may be given even before the expiration of the aforesaid period of three years:â€​

It is the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondent purchased the building only on 08.03.2011, and the release application

was filed on 02.05.2013, before expiry of three years period. Thus, according to the petitioner, the release application is not maintainable.

Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the writ petition is disposed of with a request to the learned Prescribed Authority to

consider the issue regarding maintainability of the release application in the light of the bar created by Proviso to Section 21 (1) (a) of U.P. Act No. 13

of 1972 as a preliminary issue before proceeding any further in the matter. Â