Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Instant Civil Revision, preferred under Section 25 of Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887, is directed against the judgment and decree dated 20.08.2014 passed by Judge, S.C.C./Ist additional District Judge, Haldwani in SCC suit no.22 of 2010, whereby the respondent/plaintiff's suit for a decree of eviction and arrears of rent and damages, has been allowed.

2. Facts, in brief, are that the respondent/plaintiff filed a suit in the court of Judge, SCC against the revisionist/defendant for decree of eviction and recovery of rent and damages, stating that he is the recorded owner of suit property in which the revisionist/defendant was inducted as a tenant from 10.10.2009 @ Rs.16,000/- per month. It was stated that the provisions of U.P. Act No.13 of 1972 is not applicable to the suit property being newly constructed building and the rental value of more than ` 2,000/-. Respondent/plaintiff stated that he issued a legal notice dated 17.07.2010 to the revisionist/defendant under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, terminating his tenancy on expiry of period of 30 days, and requesting him to handover the peaceful and vacant possession of the suit property. It was also stated that despite expiry of period of notice, the revisionist/defendant has not vacated the suit property nor has paid the rent due. The revisionist/defendant contested the suit and filed his written statement. The revisionist/defendant admitted the plaint averments that the respondent/plaintiff is the owner and landlord of the suit property; the rent of the suit property is ` 16,000/- per month; and that the provisions of U.P. Act No.13 of 1972 are not applicable to the suit premises. It was stated that the land on which the tin shed and office has been constructed is a bhumidhari land and the provisions of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act (hereinafter to be referred as the UPZA & LR Act) is applicable, as in view of Section 156 of the UPZA & LR Act, no bhumidhari or Aasami shall let out any land in his holding for any land in his holding for any period except as provided in that section. It was also averred that when the premises in question was let out to the defendant, no declaration under Section 143 of the UPZA & LR Act was made by the plaintiff and the premises has been let out to the defendant in contravention of Section 156 of the UPZA & LR Act. Since no declaration has been made by the plaintiff, the land in question vested in the State Government.

11. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent has placed reliance on the following judgments:-

a) M/s Ajaz Carpets and three ors. V. M/s Birla International Pvt. Ltd. (2013) 99 ALR 731 "3. The entire argument of learned counsel for the appellant is that land in dispute is agricultural land and one Sri Gupta was original bhoomidhar, who illegally let out the land to the respondent in contravention of provisions of Section 156 of UPZA & LR Act and thereupon respondent illegally sublet the same to the applicants hence by virtue of Section 165 of UPZA & LR Act, applicants have become owners/bhoomidhars.

4. By virtue of Section 116 of Evidence Act, applicants are estopped from denying the title of the land respondent.

7. Accordingly, defendants had absolutely no right to deny the title of the landlord and set up a title in themselves. In case U.P. Act No.13 of 1972 had been applicable, tenants would have been liable to eviction on the ground of denial of title of the landlord also. The allegation in the plaint that land in dispute is situate within municipal area has categorically been admitted in para-4 of the written statement. UPZA & LR Act does not apply to the areas falling within municipal limits. There is no obligation in the written statement that under Sections 3 and 5 of U.P. Urban Area and Zamindari Abolition Act, 1956 any demarcation was made and land in dispute was declared to be agricultural land. In the absence of such declaration, UPZA & LR Act cannot apply to a land situate within municipal limits. By virtue of Section 64 of U.P. Urban Area Z.A. & L.R. Act 1956 provisions of Chapter-VIII of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act apply to agricultural area acquired under 1956 Act. Under Section 8 of 1956 Act, it is provided as under:

8. Accordingly, in the absence of any pleading or evidence regarding demarcation under Section 3 & 5 of 1956 Act, provisions of Chapter-VIII of UPZA & LR Act cannot be said to be applicable upon the land/premises in dispute.

9. Even under UPZA & LR act, applicant cannot claim any benefit."

12. After going through the case-laws cited by the learned counsel for the parties, it transpires that there are contradictory decisions of the Court on this particular issue. Thus, the judgments cited above are of no assistance to any of the party. Recently, this Court in WPMS No.2180 of 2018 State of Uttarakhand vs. Amandeep Singh and others, decided on 28.07.2020, has discussed the effect of declaration or non-declaration u/s 143 of UPZA & LR Act and has accordingly held that as soon as a declaration is made under Section 143 of the Act, the land as defined under Section 3(14) of the Act comes out from the purview of the Act, but in the case where the declaration has not been made but in fact land is being used for the purposes not connected with agriculture, horticulture or animal husbandry which includes pisciculture and poultry farming, the effect of non-declaration under Section 143 of the Act would also lead to the position that the suit property shall be deemed to be excluded from the provisions of the Act. Relevant paragraphs of the said judgment are reproduced hereunder: