Sumant Singh Arya & Another vs Additional District Judge, Haridwar & Others

Sudhanshu Dhulia, J

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners challenging the order of the lower appellate court dated 02.04.2005, which has been passed in an appeal filed under Section 22 of the Act i.e. Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (from hereinafter referred to as the "Act") arising from the release application of the landlord against the tenant, whereby the lower appellate court has set aside the judgment and order dated 22.04.1999 passed by the Prescribed Authority dismissing the release application of the respondent no.2/landlord, and has allowed the appeal thereby releasing the premises in favour of the landlord.

The important aspect which must be narrated at the very threshold is that this writ petition has not been filed by the tenant against the order of the release made by the Appellate Court. It has been filed by a third persons, who claim to be the landlord of the premises. The petitioner no.1 is a Secretary of a society, namely, "Shri Shiva Ashram Prabandhak Samiti", which claims to be the owner of the property .

It is also to be stated at this juncture that during the pendency of the present writ petition, the respondent no.2/the landlord before the court below passed away and her legal heirs were already a party in the proceedings before the court below as well as in the writ petition.

Considering the fact that respondent no.2 passed away during the pendency of the present writ petition, the substitution application is allowed. Let the word "deceased" be incorporated in front of the name of respondent no.2.

The brief facts of the case are that respondent no.2/landlord filed a release application being Release Application No. 09/1996, under Section 21 (1) (a) of the Act for release of the accommodation which is admittedly under the purview of the Act. The ground for the release raised by the respondent no.2 i.e. landlord was that she is in bona fide need of the accommodation as she was a Teacher and since retired from service and finally wants to spend her life near Ganges and impart training to students in the said premises. This release application was against one Satya Prakash Tyagi, her tenant. The release application of the respondent no.2/landlord was dismissed by the Prescribed Authority vide order dated 22.04.1999. Against this order, the respondent no.2 preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority. During the pendency of the appeal, a collusive suit being SCC Suit No. 24 of 2001 was filed by the present petitioners making tenant of the respondent as a party in a SCC suit. The suit was decreed vide order dated 16.08.2002.

The fact that the suit was collusive is evident from the fact that the tenant i.e. respondent no.5 in the present writ petition did not inform the court (in SCC Suit) that an application for release has already been filed by the landlord being Release Application No. 09/1996.

This aspect has also been mentioned in the order of the lower appellate court while allowing the release application of the applicant holding that the tenant on paper has also handed over the possession to the present petitioners, as an SCC Suit was decreed in favour of the landlord.

Admittedly, the tenant did not inform the court that prior to the filing of the SCC Suit, a release application also been filed before the same court. Therefore, the writ petition at the hands of the petitioners is in fact not maintainable. They were admittedly not the tenants and were never a party before the court below, although they had full knowledge of the Rent Case. There will be a presumption in law, that they had full knowledge of the release application as well as appeal filed under Section 22 of the Act, considering that both the proceedings under the Act No. XIII of 1972 as well as the SCC proceedings were against the same tenant.

Therefore, the writ petition has no merit and the same is hereby dismissed.

It is, however, made clear that the adjudication of this Court is only to the factum of landlord and tenant relationship, between the parties.