Allahabad High Court
Manindra Singh And 2 Others vs Addl. District Judge, Court Room No. 17, ... on 22 April, 2025
Author: Pankaj Bhatia
Bench: Pankaj Bhatia
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH ?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:22602 Court No. - 6 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 4198 of 2025 Petitioner :- Manindra Singh And 2 Others Respondent :- Addl. District Judge, Court Room No. 17, Lko. And Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Prashant Shankar Singh,Saket Tiwari,Shashwat Pratap Singh Counsel for Respondent :- Pawan Kumar Misra Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Pawan Kumar Misra, learned counsel for the respondent and perused the record.
2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioners challenging the order dated 16.11.2024 whereby the revision filed by the petitioners under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Causes Courts Act, was dismissed. The said revision was filed against the judgment and order dated 24.08.2012 passed in JSCC Suit No. 283 of 1997.
3. The brief facts as emerge are that the respondent Society claiming to be a Public Charitable Religious Society, instituted a case for eviction of the petitioner, who is the tenant of the part of the premises which was given on rent to him. It was alleged that initially after the purchasing of the property, the respondent Society had instituted P.A. Case No. 11 of 1993 under Section 21(1)(a) of the U.P. Act XIII of 1972, subsequently in view of amendment on 16.09.1994 and the stand taken by the petitioner herein that the respondent Society was a Religious Charitable Society, P.A Case was dismissed on the ground that the property owned by the Society is involved in charitable works are not amenable to U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972. The said P.A. Case was ultimately dismissed on 09.11.1995. Thereafter the respondent Society served a notice determining the tenancy under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act and also served a notice demanding arrears of rent after sending a notice, SCC Case No. 283 of 1997 was filed seeking a decree of eviction and arrears of rent and ejectment. In the said case, the petitioner had put in appearance and filed the objections objecting to the prayer for grant of decree as sought. After exchange of pleadings, as many as five points of determination were framed by the JSCC. The first being with regard to service of notice, after analyzing the evidence and the receipt, the said issue was decided in favour of the plaintiff.
4. The issue no. 2 was with regard to the maintainability of the suit. While dealing with the said issue, the JSCC Court considered the statement of the petitioner wherein specific stand was taken that the Society was a Charitable Society. The Court also noticed the argument of the petitioner that the evidence was led by the power of attorney holder and thus, the suit was not maintainable on that ground also. The Court repelled the argument of the petitioner on both counts, firstly, that the petitioner himself had admitted the Society to be a registered Charitable Society and also repelled the argument with regard to the evidence being led by the power of attorney.
5. The issue no. 3 was specifically framed as to whether the provisions of U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972 would be applicable to the premises or not. The Court after analyzing the evidence as raised held that the petitioner himself had admitted, the respondent Society to be a Charitable Society. The Court also analyzed the document on record which included the registration of the Society and the Rules as framed by the Society which indicated that the Society was engaged in religious and charitable activities. The Court also noticed that no evidence contrary to the same was led by the petitioner as such, a finding was recorded that the respondent Society was not amenable to the U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972 by virtue of Section 2(bb) of the U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972.
6. The fourth issue was with regard to default in payment of rent. The Court noticed that the conduct of the petitioner, where certain amounts were paid and after analyzing the evidence on record recorded that the application filed by the landlord under Order XV Rule V has been accepted on 21.08.2000 at the risk of the tenant and ultimately a finding was recorded that the entire rent was not deposited. It was also recorded that the tenant was trying to delay the proceedings and has not deposited the rent before the first date of hearing, as such, he was not entitled to the benefit of Section 20(4) of U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972. In the light of the said findings, the suit was decreed.
7. Aggrieved against the said judgment passed on 24.08.2012, the petitioner preferred a revision under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Causes Courts Act. The Revisional Court after analyzing the evidence and after revisiting all the issues as were framed by the JSCC ultimately proceeded to dismiss the revision vide order dated 16.11.2024, which is impugned in the present writ petition.
8. The first submission of the counsel for the petitioner is that admittedly, the respondent Society is a Society registered under the Society Registration Act and claims that it was doing religious and charitable works and thus placing reliance on Section 20, it is argued that the said Society, registered under the Society Registration Act would not be exempted by virtue of Section 2 (bb) of U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972. He next submits that the suit in question was filed by the Secretary of the Society, which is contrary to the mandate of Section 6 of the Society Registration Act. He further argues that no notice indicating default in payment of rent was ever served. My attention is drawn to the provisions of Section 2(bb) of the U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972, which exempts the buildings specified in Section 2 from the operation of the Act, being U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972. Section 2(1)(bb) is as under:-
"2(1)(bb) any building belonging to or vested in a public charitable or public religious institutions."
9. The counsel for the respondent on the other hand, justifies the orders by arguing that the petitioner himself had taken a specific ground in the earlier application filed by the petitioner under Section 21(1)(a) to the effect that the respondent Society was a Charitable Institution and thus was not entitled to file an application under Section 21(1)(a) of the U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972.
10. Considering the submissions made at the Bar, with regard to the applicability of U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972, specific defence was taken by the petitioner in P.A. Case No. 11 of 1992 that the respondent Society was a Charitable Religious Society and thus the provisions of Rent Control Act was not applicable and based upon the said, the proceedings initiated before the Prescribed Authority came to be dismissed in the year 1995. The submission of the counsel for the petitioner in reference to Section 2(1)(bb) of U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972 further merits rejection as, the prescriptions under the same provision are in relation to any building belonging to or vested in a public charitable or a public religious institutions, there being no bar in the building on such a nature either being owned by the Society or otherwise, clearly in view of the evidence led, the respondent Society was exempt from the operation of the Act. As regards, the submission with regard to non service of notice demanding arrears of rent, reliance is placed on the judgment of this Court in the case of Harish Chandra Versus IInd Addl. District Judge, Moradabad and others, 1982(1) Alld. Rent Cases 16, wherein it was held that if the tenancy was terminated without there being any demand of arrears of rent, the same would be a simpliciter under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. The second judgment placed is in the case of Santosh Kumar Shah Versus The Elgin Mills Co. Ltd, 1982 (1) ARC 185, wherein a similar preposition was upheld. The said two judgments will be of no avail to the petitioner for two reasons, firstly, that the Rent Control Act is not applicable as held in the foregoing paragraphs and secondly a notice was specifically served demanding arrears of rent which has also been decreed, thus, the submission to that extent also merits rejection and is rejected.
11. The third submission being with regard to the entitlement of the Secretary, to institute the proceedings and the right of the power of attorney holders to lead evidence. In that context, the counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Janki Vashdeo Bhojwani and Another Versus Indusind Bnak Ltd and others, AIR 2005 Supreme Court 439, wherein the Supreme Court had the occasion to deal with the issue of power of attorney leading evidence. The Court noticing the diversion views, held that the power of attorney holder can appear only in his own capacity and cannot be allowed as a witness in the capacity of the plaintiff. The next judgment relied upon is in the case of M/S Gopal Roller Flour Mills P. Ltd. Hyd. Versus Bhagwan Traders, Business, Raigarh, wherein Telangana High Court had the occasion to consider the similar issue with regard to right of the power of attorney holder to depose on behalf of the plaintiff.
12. Analyzing the said argument, even as per the counsel for the petitioner, in terms of the bylaws of the Society contained at Page 153, it was the executive of the Society, which put institute the suit. The said also prescribes that said executive can authorize any person to institute the suit. There is no material on record to suggest that the institution of the suit by the Secretary was not authorize by the Society. As regards, the deposition of the power of attorney holders as a witness, the law is clearly well settled in the case of Man Kaur Versus Hartar Singh (2010) 4 SCC 512, wherein it has been clarified by the Supreme Court that the power of attorney cannot depose in respect of the cases and and in respect of the issues, which are only in the knowledge of the plaintiff. Thus, the submission to that extent also merits rejections and is accordingly rejected. In the overall view on the basis of the reasoning recorded herein above, the writ petition lacks merits and is accordingly dismissed.
13. The execution proceedings pending shall be decided within a period of six months in view of the directions given by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal Nos. 3640-3642 of 2025 (Periyammal (Dead) Through Lrs. and Ors. Vs. V. Rajamani and Anr. ETC) dated 06.03.2025.
Order Date :- 22.4.2025/Arun