Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

1. A frustrated landlord after having met his Waterloo in the hierarchy of civil courts, has further enmeshed the tenant in a frivolous criminal prosecution which prima facie appears to be an abuse of the Process of law. The facts when stated are so telling that the further discussion may appear to be superfluous.

2. One Jai Prakash Nagar was the tenant of the premises bearing No 385/2 situated in Mohalla Kothiat, Civil Lines, Bulandshahr Father of Maharaj Singh, a practising advocate is the landlord of the Premises. According to the landlord, tenant Jaiprakash Nagar vacated" the premises on January 2, 1978, and as required by Section 15(2) of the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, ('Rent Act' for short), gave a notice of the same to the District Magistrate. There is a similar obligation on the landlord and pursuant to this obligation as prescribed in Section 15(1) of the Rent Act, Maharaj Singh also gave intimation of the vacancy to the District Magistrate on January 5, 1978. The Rent Control Inspector made a report on January 7, 1978 that the premises was found locked at the time of his inspection. Amongst others appellant Chandrapal Singh also moved the Rent Control Officer, the delegate of the District Magistrate, for allotment of the premises to him because he was occupying adjacent premises bearing No. 385/1. The proceedings for allotment ended in favour of present appellant Chandrapal Singh on October 22, 1978. Maharaj Singh and his father Dhiraj Singh preferred R.C.R, No. 58/78 before the District Judge, Bulandshahr impleading present appellant 1 Chandrapal Singh being the allottee of the premises. The Fourth Addl. District Judge before whom the matter came up for hearing confirmed the order of allotment but set aside the finding of the Rent Control Officer about the rent of the premises as well as observations about the ownership of the premises. The net result was that the order of allotment in favour of appellant 1 became final.

3. Maharaj Singh son of the landlord filed a criminal complaint in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bulandshahr, against the present appellants alleging that the three appellants had committed offences under Sections 193, 199 and 201 Indian Penal Code. Appellant 1 is the allottee and appellants 2 and 3 are persons who had filed affidavits in the course of the allotment proceedings before the Rent Control Officer in support of the claim for allotment made by appellant 1. It was alleged in the complaint that the premises bearing No 385/2 comprises three rooms which formed the subject-matter of allotment proceedings before the Rent Control Officer and appellant 1 had taken forcible possession of one of the three rooms and the verandah and was in unauthorised occupation and this led to the complainant Maharaj Singh, Advocate, riling the criminal complaint under Section 448/426, I.P.C. which proceeding is pending. It was further alleged that in order to save himself from the criminal prosecution appellant 1 knowingly and intentionally made a false statement that Jai Prakash Nagar whose vacating the premises led to the allotment proceedings was not in possession of three rooms and a verandah but he was in possession of one room, kitchen, a bathroom, a latrine and a courtyard. According to the complainant Maharaj Singh this was a false statement. In paragraph 8 of the complaint there is a peculiar statement which shows how chagrined the complainant was on the allotment proceedings terminating against him. He has stated in paragraph 8 as under:

11. The premises bearing No. 385/2 was vacated by Jai Prakash Nagar. The premises is situated on the first floor of a building. Pre mises bearing Nos. 385, 385/1 and 385/2 form different portions of the same building. The premises involved in the dispute is one bearing No. 385/2. It is not in dispute that premises bearing No. 385/1 is occupied by Chandrapal Singh, appellant 1. Since 1975 a suit is pending between the father of the complainant Maharaj Singh and Smt. Kripali Devi, wife of Chandrapal Singh, appellant 1, for the sale of the premises. Now, in the allotment proceedings Chandrapal Singh complained that Maharaj Singh has allowed some students to occupy part of the premises. There was some dispute as to the area vacated by Jai Prakash Nagar. Appellant 1 Chandrapal Singh sought allotment of the premises vacated by Jai Prakash Nagar on the ground that he was a tenant in the adjacent premises. Maharaj Singh alleged that Chandrapal Singh was in unauthorised occupation of a portion of the premises vacated by Jai Prakash Nagar. The Rent Control Officer recorded a finding that Maharaj Singh is trying to evict Chandrapal Singh to defeat the suit for sale of the premises. He further recorded a finding that appellant 1 Chandrapal Singh was in occupation of the premises of which he claimed to be a tenant since 1972. He then referred to the size of the family of Chandrapal Singh and after comparing requirements of rival claimants, ultimately held that Chandrapal Singh was entitled to the allotment of the premises vacated by Jai Prakash Nagar. In reaching this conclusion he also 55 recorded two findings, one about the size of the accommodation vacated by Jai Prakash Nagar and the other about the rent payable for the same.

12. In the revision petition filed by the landlord against the order of allotment in favour of appellant 1, three contentions were raised. Firstly, he challenged the allotment order on merits; secondly, he urged that the Rent Control Officer had no jurisdiction to decide the area of the accommodation vacated by Jai Prakash Nagar; and thirdly he contended that the Rent Control Officer had no jurisdiction to determine the rent. The Fourth Additional District Judge who heard the matter rejected the contention on the first point and accepted the second and third contentions. Ultimately he confirmed the order of allotment. While reaching this conclusion he held that there was no dispute between the parties in respect of the portion of premises bearing No. 385 and 385/1 being in possession and tenancy of Chandrapal Singh. He upheld the finding that Chandrapal Singh is entitled to the allotment of the premises No. 385/2. Then there is an observation that the claim of Chandrapal Singh was incorrect to the extent that he was already in possession of one room in the upper storey. At the later stage it was observed that there was no Cogent and documentary or believable evidence on record to hold that Shri Chandrapal Singh was already in possession of one room in upper portion along with ground floor of house No. 385/1 in any manner, and it was concluded that the claim of the appellant 1 that he was in possession of one room in premises No. 385/2 was not correct. However, as stated earlier, he finally upheld the allotment order of premises No. 385/2 in favour of appellant 1 Chandrapal Singh.