By – Mudit Mohan Sharma
In The Supreme Court Of India
|NAME OF THE CASE||MOHD. INAM VERSUS SANJAY KUMAR SINGHAL & ORS.|
|CITATION||CIVIL APPEAL NO._2697 OF 2020|
|DATE OF THE CASE||26 June 2020|
|RESPONDENT||Sanjay Kumar Singhal|
|JUDGE||Lok Pal Singh, J.|
|STATUTES/ CONSTITUTION INVOLVED||Constitution Of India|
|IMPORTANT SECTION /ARTICLES||Constitution Of India Article 226 & 227 Section 18 & 19|
Rashid Ahmed, the father of this appellant, was the primary tenant of House No.61/8, Ground Floor, inexperienced Pasture browse, Landhour Bazar, Mussoorie (hereinafter mentioned as “the suit premises” or “the premises”) since 1965. The respondents – property owner stirred Associate in the Nursing application before the Rent Controller and Eviction Officer, Mussoorie on 10.6.1999, agonistic during this, that Rashid Ahmed had sub¬let the property to different persons who weren’t the members of the family of the tenant. As such, they prayed for declaration of vacancy below the provisions of Section 16(1)(b) of U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter mentioned as “U.P. Act, 1972” or “the Act”).
On the appliance of the owner, a Rent management Inspector was appointed to look at the suit premises. The Rent management Inspector visited the suit premises and submitted his report on 16.08.1999. among the report, it fully was expressed, that Rashid Ahmed, who was the tenant, didn’t gift among the premises at the time of the scrutiny and he was familiar with the occupants that he had gone to his village Bhatpura in Saharanpur District. The report extra expressed, that Rashid and Akbar were sons of Hasunuddin and, as such, real brothers. The report expressed that, several persons are residing among the premises which they comprised of four separate families, namely, Rashid Ahmed; Inam s/o Rashid Ahmed at the side of his six children; Shabbir Ahmed, spouse Shafikan and daughter; and Ayyub and his kids Naseem and Nashima severally.
Rashid Ahmad father’s of the present Appellant had taken our house on rent in Mussoorie in the year 1965 and Sudesh Kumar single ping the original land had moved an application in the year 1999 to get the vacancy order contending that the tenant ad tablet the property to some other parties. The rent control and eviction officer after certain enquiry gave in order off vacancy on 4/6/2003 after which a writ petition was moved in High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital [W.P. No. 7(MS) of 2003] granting liberty to the petitioner to change the order dated 4/06/2013 after the final order which was given on 31/05/2007. After which suit for revision Was Here by district judge Dehradun [R.C.R. No. 122 of 2007] set aside the order of vacancy dated 4/6/2003. Then the respondent filed, w.p.No. 1074 of 2008 (M/S) in HC of Uttaranchal at Nainital which was allowed by order dated 26/10/2007 under article ll 226 OR 227 of the constitution. being aggrieved which appellant has filed this suit. In brief, are the petitioners are the landlords of the property in dispute 1 Rashid Ahmed was the 10 and since 1965 in the promises in question after living in the premises in question Rashid Ahmed left the place and stable at the property to his brother Shabeer Ahmed. The landlords moved an application before the rent control and evolution officer, Mussoorie with the player dad Rashid Ahmad tenant has tablet the property to some other person who is not the family member of the tenant therefore the vacancy under section 16(1)(b) of U.P urban buildings (Regulation of Letting Rent and Eviction) Act 1972 (hereinafter referred as U.P Act 1972). On application so move trend control Inspector was appointed to inspect the premises in question the rent control is better visited at the spot and submitted its report on 16.08.1999. Report rent control inspection has mentioned that Rashid Ahmed was the 10 and at the time of inspection, he was not present at the spot and was informed that he went to his village Saharanpur. He further stated that Rajiv and Akbar sons of hasunuddin were the brothers. Shabbir his wife shaken nasima daughter of Ayub, Shabnam daughter of Inam and machine residing at the premises in the quotient. He also found that there are separate Kitchens on the premises and the property is being used by the family member of tenants as well as by non-family members of the tenant and provides all the main points in his report. Objections were invited by the rent control and admission office arrange report dated 16.08/1999 and after hearing the parties has passed the order dated 04.06.2003 and held at the 3 people using the property of the tenant Rashid Ahmed which was not loved by him.
BACKGROUND OF THE CASE
The original tenant Rashid Ahmed filed objections to the scrutiny report stating during this, that he and his brother and their families reside among the premises as tenants. He extra expressed, that residence was in his name and there was no various one who was outside his family residing among the said premises. He, therefore, resisted declaring the suit premises as vacant. During the pendency of the proceedings, the house owner of four the competent authority that, on 19.1.2000 Rashid Ahmed died in his village Bhatpura abandoning his son Mohd. Inam, this appellant, as his legal heir. As such, the name of Rashid Ahmed came to be substituted thereupon of this appellant. this appellant filed his application stating during this, that at the side of various members of the family presently Rashid Ahmed was residing among the said premises.
The Rent management and Eviction Officer concluded that the persons, who were presently residing among the premises had not created any proof to prove, that they were living as tenants since 1965 at the side of late Rashid Ahmed. As such, he concluded, that the tenants had allowed persons to reside among the premises, who are not members of the family and, as such, declared the suit premises as vacant vide order dated 4.6.2003.
FACTS OF THE CASE
The original tenant of House No.61/8, Ground Floor, inexperienced Pasture read, Landhour Bazar, Mussoorie (hereinafter spoken as “the suit premises” or “the premises”) since 1965. The respondents had purchased the suit premises from the initial property owner Sudesh Kumar Singhal within the year 1998 and, as such, became the tenant Rashid Ahmed’s property owner from 1998. The respondents – property owner rapt associate application before the Rent Controller and Eviction Officer, Mussoorie on ten.6.1999, competitive in this, that Rashid Ahmed had sublet the property to another person who wasn’t the members of the family of the tenant.
District decides has thought of the word allowed to be occupied in section 12 of the up at 1972 as understood within the case of harish Tandon vs district adjudicator Allahabad UP and different that it absolutely controlled at the unhappy word if the possession of such building had been given to an individual who wasn’t a family member of the tenant On the applying of the owner, a Rent management Inspector was appointed to examine the suit premises. The Rent management Inspector visited the suit premises and submitted his report on 16.08.1999. within the report, it absolutely was explicit, that Rashid Ahmed, who was the tenant, didn’t gift within the premises at the time of the scrutiny and he was known by the occupants that he had gone to his village Bhatpura in Saharanpur District. the initial tenant Rashid Ahmed filed objections to the scrutiny report stating in this, that he and his brother and their families reside within the premises as tenants. He additional explicit, that abidance was in his name and there was no different one that was outside his family residing within the aforesaid premises.
ISSUE RAISED BEFORE THE COURT
Whether the high court is exercising action under article 227 of the Constitution of India right
ARGUMENTS FROM THE APPELLANT SIDE
the present appellant at the side of his relative Shabbir Ahmed filed a legal document Petition before the high court of Uttaranchal at Nainital being legal document Petition No. 7 (MS) of 2003. The state supreme court vide order dated 23.8.2006 by about the judgment of this Court within the case of Achal Misra vs. Rama Shanker Singh and others1 granted liberty to the petitioners in that to challenge the order dated 4.6.2003 when the ultimate order i.e. order of release/allotment was passed underneath Section 16 of the U.P. Act, 1972. The Rent Controller and Eviction Officer passed a final order underneath Section 16 of the U.P. Act, 1972 on 31.5.2007 therefore, announcing the lawsuit site unoccupied in approval of the respondent – landlord Being aggrieved thereby, the appellant and aforesaid Shabbir Ahmed filed a revision being R.C.R. No.122 of 2007 before the District choose, Dehradun as provided underneath Section eighteen of the U.P. Act, 1972. The learned District choose, Dehradun, by a wellreasoned order dated 5.6.2008, allowed the revision thereby, setting aside the order of vacancy dated 4.6.2003 and therefore the final order dated 31.5.2007. one (2005) five SCC 531 Existence affronted, therefore, the defendant No.1 and a complete pair of – Landlord command a writ petition before the high court of Uttarakhand at Nainital being legal document Petition No.1074 of 2008 (M/S). As explicit earlier, the aforesaid legal document petition is allowed by the impugned order dated 26.10.2017. Being aggrieved, this attractiveness by special leave.
ARGUMENTS FROM THE RESPONDENT SIDE
We have detected Shri Ashok Kumar Sharma, learned Senior Counsel showing on behalf of the appellant and Shri Arvind Kumar Gupta, learned counsel showing on behalf of the respondents – landowner. 5. the most ground on that the writ petition has been allowed by the court is that the learned District choose had committed unlawfulness in amusing the joint revision filed against the vacancy order still because of the final order. The court within the impugned order has ascertained, that the judgment and order dated 23.8.2006, elapsed the aforementioned court dismissing the legal instrument petition had not been challenged before this Court by the respondents No. 1 and a couple of in that (appellant and proforma respondent No.3 herein). The court additional goes to look at, that the respondents in that (appellant and proforma respondent No.3 herein) had electoral to not assail the vacancy order still because the order dated 23.8.2006, elapsed the court dismissing the aforementioned legal instrument petition. It goes to additional observe, that once dismissal of the legal instrument petition there was no occasion for the court to grant liberty to the respondents in that, to avail remedy of revision, difficult the order of vacancy dated 4.6.2003. The learned choose has gone to additional observe, that the revision against the order dated 4.6.2003 wasn’t rectifiable which the District choose had committed patent unlawfulness in amusing the revision.
Section 16(1)(b) of U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act 1972 (hereinafter referred to as U.P. Act 1972), Section 3(g) of the U.P. Act, 1972.
Short title, extent, application and commencement. – (1) This Act could also be referred to as the called Urban Buildings (Regulation of material possession, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972. (2) It extends to the completion of Uttar Pradesh. (3) It shall apply to- (a) each town as outlined within the Uttar Pradesh Nagar Mahapalika Adhiniyam, 1959 ; (b) each municipality as outlined within the United Provinces Municipalities Act, 1916 ; (c) each notified space set up underneath the United Provinces Municipalities Act, 1916 ;and (d) each city space set up underneath the United Provinces city Areas Act, 1914: Provided that the regime, if it’s glad that it’s necessary or expedient therefore to try and do within the interest of the final public, residing in the other native space, might by notification within the Gazette declare that this Act or any half therefrom shall apply to such space, and with that this Act or half shall apply to such space : Provided any that the regime, if it’s glad that it’s necessary or expedient therefore to try and do within the interest of general public, might by notification in Gazette- (i) cancel or amend any notification issued underneath the preceding proviso; or (ii) declare that the Act or any half therefrom, because the case could also be, shall stop to use to any such town, municipality, notified space, city space or different (4) It shall acquire force on such date because the regime might by notification within the Gazette appoint
Section 14 of the U.P. Act 1972. Section 14 of the U.P. Act
ARTICLE 227 CONSTITUTION OF INDIA
Power of high court over all courts by the state supreme court.-2[3[(1) each state supreme court shall have management over all courts and tribunals throughout the territories in relevancy that it exercises jurisdiction.] ] (2) while not prejudice to the generality of the preceding provision, the state supreme court may- (a) entail returns from such courts; (b) create and issue general rules and order forms for regulation the observe and proceedings of such courts; and (c) order forms within which books, entries and accounts shall be unbroken by the officers of any such courts. (3) The state supreme court may additionally settle tables of fees to be allowed to the law officer and every one clerk and officers of such courts and attorneys, advocates and pleaders practising therein: Provided that any rules created, forms prescribed or tables settled beneath clause (2) or clause (3) shall not be inconsistent with the availability of any law for the present in effect, and shall need the previous approval of the Governor. (4) Nothing during this article shall be deemed to confer on a state supreme court powers of management over any court or assembly recognized by or beneath any law about the soldiers
The judgment and order dated 23.08.2006 passed by this Court dismissing the writ petition have not been challenged before the Hon’ble Apex Court by respondent nos. 1 and 2. Thus, respondents have the elective to not assail the vacancy order also as the order dated 23.08.2006 lapsed this Court, dismissing the legal document petition. Therefore, after the dismissal of the writ petition, there is no occasion for this Court to grant liberty to the respondents to avail remedy of revision challenging the order of vacancy dated 04.06.2003. Thus because of this Court, as soon as the Court had dismissed the writ petition vide order dated 23.08.2006 it becomes functus officio and any observation made by this Court in its order has no help to the respondents. In my thought-about read, revision against the order dated 04.06.2003 wasn’t rectifiable and learned District decide committed patent unlawfulness in setting aside the order dated 04.06.2003, Learned District Judge, though has placed reliance on the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in ARC 1995 (1) 220 Harish Tandon vs. A.D.M Allahabad however the magnitude relation of the judgment doesn’t favour to the respondents rather magnitude relation of the judgment favour to the petitioner, as the insight of the order of vacancy the respondents were controlled illegal inhabitant of the property the learned District decide has illicitly extended advantage of judgment (supra) in favour of the respondents. The next purpose is concerning the allotment order dated thirty one.05.2007. Since the order declaring the vacancy dated 04.06.2003 has become final and was unassailed by the respondents before the Hon’ble Apex Court thus they weren’t entitled to challenge constantly before the revisional court. Since the order of declaring the vacancy was thoroughbred and has earned determinateness, thus whereas hearing the revision against the order of allotment, it absolutely was not open for the District choose to travel behind and scrutinize unlawfulness or deportment of the vacancy order dated 04.06.2003 isn’t rectifiable and stepping into the factual side of the matter, the revisional court got no authority to interfere within the findings of the fact. so District chooses, “Dehradun has committed unlawfulness in recording the perverse findings of reality whereas setting aside the order of allotment”. Because of this Court, the revisional court has exceeded in travail its revisional jurisdiction beneath section 18 of the U.P. Act 1972 and in setting aside the order of declaring vacancy and allotment on the groundless ground, on the far side the scope of section 18 of the Act 1972. The order dated 05.06.2008 elapsed the revisional court is perverse and against the availability of law. constant is ready aside. The writ petition is allowed. The Rent management and Eviction Officer, Mussoorie is directed to require necessary steps in pursuance of the order of allotment/release dated 31.05.2007. “In the facts and circumstances of the case, parties shall bear their own cost”. (Lok Pal Singh, J.) Parul 26.10.2017
The District choose has considered the words “allowed to be occupied” in section twelve of the U.P.Act, 1972 as taken within in the case of Harish Tandon v. Addl. District jurist, Allahabad, U.P. et al. wherever it absolutely was a command that the same words would be attracted if the possession of such a building had been given to an individual, who wasn’t a friend of the tenant. It is a well-settled principle of law, that in the semblance of travail jurisdiction beneath Article 227, the HC cannot convert itself into a court of appeal. In Satyanarayan Laxminarayan Hegde & Ors. V. Millikarjun Bhavanappa Tirumale, it completely was the command that although the powers underneath Article 227 are wide, they need to be exercised meagrely and only to stay subordinate courts and Tribunals at intervals the bounds of their authority and to not correct mere errors.