Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

1. Heard Sri Arvind Srivastava, Advocate, for petitioner and Sri Pradeep Kumar, Advocate, for respondents 3/1 to 3/5.

2. Since pleadings are complete, as requested by learned counsels for parties, it was heard finally and being decided at this stage under the Rules of the Court.

3. The facts set out in the writ petition are as under.

4. Petitioner is a tenant of a shop situated at Sri Krishna Bazar, Pargana Saifai, District Etawah (hereinafter referred to as "shop in dispute"). Initially the shop in dispute was let out to Sri Puttu Lal Jain, father of petitioner Ameer Chandra Jain, who expired long back whereafter tenancy rights devolved on petitioner, who claims to be living with his brother Kailash Chandra Jain and doing business of "Bardana" in the said shop. It is pleaded that his brother Kailash Chandra Jain, respondent no. 4 (now deceased and substituted by his legal heirs), left for Delhi and settled thereat.

6. Since petitioner was not a party in the aforesaid proceedings, when he came to know of the aforesaid compromise order, obtained from Court of Prescribed Authority, without impleading the petitioner as party therein, he preferred P.A. Appeal No. 3 of 1997 impleading respondents no. 3 and 4, both, as opposite parties no. 1 and 2 respectively. The appeal was dismissed by Additional District Judge, Etawah vide judgment dated 23.2.2005 observing that appellant (petitioner in this writ petition) has failed to demonstrate that his father, Puttu Lal Jain, was initially tenant in the shop in dispute and after his death, joint tenancy devolved on the legal heirs of Sri Puttu Lal Jain, and, having failed to demonstrate his tenancy rights, he was rightly not impleaded in the Release Application filed by respondent no. 3. Hence there was no reason for interference by the Appellate Court. The Court also referred to Civil Suit No. 157 of 1997 filed by petitioner himself in the Court of Civil Judge in which an injunction order was passed by Trial Court on 3.3.1997 restraining landlord from evicting appellant (present petitioner), otherwise than due process of law.

24. It may not be disputed, if amongst joint tenants, some left tenanted premises and shifted elsewhere, there may be a presumption of surrender of tenancy rights by them and, therefore, eviction proceedings, if any, may not proceed unless the co-tenant who is in occupation of tenanted premises is proceeded against by impleading him a party but before attracting such principle, the existence of joint tenancy rights have to be proved. In the present case, nothing has been placed on record by learned counsel for petitioner to demonstrate that shop in dispute was ever let out to father of petitioner and respondent no. 4, during his lifetime and after his death, tenancy rights devolved upon his legal heirs. On the contrary, the documents on record demonstrate that shop in dispute was in the tenancy of respondent no. 4. Moreover this question of fact has been found proved by the Courts below against petitioner. The learned counsel for petitioner has miserably failed to demonstrate, either the above finding perverse or something against record or any manifest error therein otherwise. In these circumstances, once the sole tenancy right of respondent no. 4 could not have been demolished by petitioner, the entire case set up by him also stands demolished. I thus find no good reason to interfere with the order of Appellate Court in dismissing appeal of the petitioner. It also justifies not to draw any other inference except one that an accommodation cannot be released on mere compromise entered into between the tenant and landlord for the reason that the alternative argument of Sri Arvind Srivastava, learned counsel for petitioner, is founded thereon, inasmuch, he also claims that even if possession of petitioner is held unauthorized or illegal, still he is entitled to be considered a "regularized tenant" by application of Section 14 of Act, 1972 since he was in possession of shop in dispute before 5.7.1976, the cut of date to attract Section 14 of Act, 1972.