MOHD INAM Vs. SANJAY KUMAR SINGHAL
LAWS(SC)-2020-6-27
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Decided on June 26,2020

Mohd Inam Appellant
VERSUS
Sanjay Kumar Singhal Respondents





Cited Judgements :-

BHANUMATIBEN RAMSINH VAGHELA VS. DESIGNATED OFFICER, URBAN DEVELOPMENT AND URBAN HOUSING DEPARTMENT [LAWS(GJH)-2021-10-193] [REFERRED TO]
HANIFMOHAMMAD ABDULBHAI MALEK VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2021-10-765] [REFERRED TO]
TBN. PHRANGSNGI MYNSONG VS. TBN. G. THWINGLAND LYNGDOH [LAWS(MEGH)-2021-9-4] [REFERRED TO]
ABID-UL-ISLAM VS. INDER SAIN DUA [LAWS(SC)-2022-4-14] [REFERRED TO]
SH MEHAR SINGH VS. STATE OF H. P. [LAWS(HPH)-2021-7-73] [REFERRED TO]
JASMATBHAI NARADBHAI KOYANI VS. DISTRICT DEVELOPMENT OFFICER [LAWS(GJH)-2021-10-1228] [REFERRED TO]
M. SANJEEVA SHETTY VS. HILARY MASCARENHAS [LAWS(KAR)-2021-1-63] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

B.R.GAVAI,J. - (1.)Leave granted.
(2.)This appeal challenges the judgment and order dated 26.10.2017 passed by the learned single judge of the High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital in Writ Petition No. 1074 of 2008 (M/S) thereby, allowing the writ petition filed by the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 - landlords herein.
(3.)The facts, in brief, necessary for adjudication of the present appeal are thus:
Rashid Ahmed, the father of the present appellant, was the original tenant of House No.61/8, Ground Floor, Green Pasture View, Landhour Bazar, Mussoorie (hereinafter referred to as "the suit premises" or "the premises") since 1965. The respondents had purchased the suit premises from the original landlord Sudesh Kumar Singhal in the year 1998 and, as such, became the tenant Rashid Ahmeds landlord from 1998. The respondents landlord moved an application before the Rent Controller and Eviction Officer, Mussoorie on 10.6.1999, contending therein, that Rashid Ahmed had sublet the property to some other persons who were not the family members of the tenant. As such, they prayed for declaration of vacancy under the provisions of 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" or "the Act").

On the application of the landlord, a Rent Control Inspector was appointed to inspect the suit premises. The Rent Control Inspector visited the suit premises and submitted his report on 16.08.1999. In the report, it was stated, that Rashid Ahmed, who was the tenant, was not present in the premises at the time of the inspection and he was informed by the occupants that he had gone to his village Bhatpura in Saharanpur District. The report further stated, that Rashid and Akbar were sons of Hasunuddin and, as such, real brothers. The report stated that, there were several persons residing in the premises and they comprised of four separate families, namely, (1) Rashid Ahmed; (2) Inam s/o Rashid Ahmed along with his six children; (3) Shabbir Ahmed, wife Shafikan and daughter; and (4) Ayyub and his children Naseem and Nashima respectively.

The original tenant - Rashid Ahmed filed objections to the inspection report stating therein, that he and his brother and their families are living in the premises as tenant. He further stated, that tenancy was in his name and there was no other person who was outside his family residing in the said premises. He, therefore, resisted declaring the suit premises as vacant.

During the pendency of the proceedings, the house owner informed the competent authority that, on 19.1.2000 Rashid Ahmed died in his village Bhatpura leaving behind his son Mohd. Inam, the present appellant, as his legal heir. As such, the name of Rashid Ahmed came to be substituted with that of the present appellant. The present appellant filed his application stating therein, that he along with other family members of late Rashid Ahmed was residing in the said premises.

The Rent Control and Eviction Officer came to the conclusion that the persons, who were presently residing in the premises had not produced any evidence to prove, that they were living as tenants since 1965 along with late Rashid Ahmed. As such, he came to the conclusion, that the tenants had allowed persons to reside in the premises, who are not members of the family and, as such, declared the suit premises as vacant vide order dated 4.6.2003.

Being aggrieved thereby, the present appellant along with his cousin Shabbir Ahmed filed Writ Petition before the High Court of Uttaranchal at Nainital being Writ Petition No. 7 (MS) of 2003. The High Court vide order dated 23.8.2006 by referring to the judgment of this Court in the case of Achal Misra vs. Rama Shanker Singh and others, (2005) 5 SCC 531 granted liberty to the petitioners therein to challenge the order dated 4.6.2003 after the final order i.e. order of release/allotment was passed under Section 16 of the U.P. Act, 1972.

The Rent Controller and Eviction Officer passed a final order under Section 16 of the U.P. Act, 1972 on 31.5.2007 thereby, declaring the suit premises 'vacant' in favour of the respondents - landlord.

Being aggrieved thereby, the appellant and said Shabbir Ahmed filed a revision being R.C.R. No. 122 of 2007 before the District Judge, Dehradun as provided under Section 18 of the U.P. Act, 1972. The learned District Judge, Dehradun, by a well-reasoned order dated 5.6.2008, allowed the revision thereby, setting aside the order of vacancy dated 4.6.2003 and the final order dated 31.5.2007.

Being aggrieved thereby, the respondents No. 1 and 2 - landlord filed a writ petition before the High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital being Writ Petition No. 1074 of 2008 (M/S). As stated earlier, the said writ petition is allowed by the impugned order dated 26.10.2017. Being aggrieved, the present appeal by special leave.

;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.