# Dr.Sita Ram Gandhi v. IVth Additional

- **Citation:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad #39691
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2000
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/dr-sita-ram-gandhi-v-ivth-additional-39691
- **Pages:** 3

## Text

2 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2000
Dr.Sita Ram Gandhi Vs. IVth Additional
District Judge, Meerut and another, 1984 ALJ
48,wherein it was observed that Rule 18 of
U.P. Urban Building (Regulation of Letting.
Rent and Eviction) Rules, 1972 (in short the
Rules) though restricts a landlord from
moving a second application within a year of
the dismissal of the first application but it
does not rule out the applicability of the
principle of resjudicata. The principle behind
the resjudicata is different than one which led
the legislature to frame Rule 18. The two
things should not be mixed up and confused.

5.
This
case
was
explained
and
distinguished in Ram Lila Society Kanpur v.
IInd Additional District Judge, Kanpur and
others 1986 (2) ARC 49, wherein it was held
that if there are additional reasons to file
another application, after one year, the second
application cannot be rejected merely on the
ground that earlier application was dismissed.

In Sita Ram Gandhi's case (Supra) the
Supreme Court itself made clear that the
changed circumstances may be taken into
account in deciding the second application for
release made by the landlord.

6. In the matter of need as well as
hardship the time is very important factor.
The changes occur each day and each month.
It is on this principle Rule 18 was framed
which provides that where an application of
the landlord against the tenant for eviction
filed under Section 21 (1) (a) of the Act has
been finally allowed or rejected on merits, if
second application is filed within a period of
six months the Prescribed Authority shall
accept the findings in those proceedings as
conclusive. This Rule engraved the principle
of resjudicata for a fixed period because after
some period the changes may itself occur.

7. On the facts of the present case it was
found that the condition of the building
further deteriorated and the need of the
landlord
further
increased.
Both
the
authorities have recorded concurrent finding
that the disputed accommodation is in
dilapidated condition and is required by the
landlord for his personal need. There is no
legal infirmity in the findings recorded by
them.

I do not find any merit in the writ petition.
It is accordingly dismissed.
Petition dismissed.

25,*,1$/ -85,6',&7,21
25,*,1$/ -85,6',&7,21
&,9,/ 6,'(
&,9,/ 6,'(
'$7(' 7+( $//$+$%$'
'$7(' 7+( $//$+$%$'
%()25(
%()25(
7+( +21·%/( '66,
7+( +21·%/( '66,1+$-
1+$-
7+( +21·%/( ,048''86,-
7+( +21·%/( ,048''86,-

&LYLO 0LVF :ULW 3HWLWLRQ 1R RI
3UHP NXPDU
«3HWLWLRQHU
9HUVXV
6WDWH RI 83 WKURXJK WKH 'LVWULFW 0DJLVWUDWH
)DWHKSXU DQG RWKHUV
«5HVSRQGHQWV

&RXQVHO IRU WKH 3HWLWLRQHU
6KUL 6KDUDG 9DUPD
&RXQVHO IRU WKH 5HVSRQGHQWV
6&
6KUL 3.0XNKHUML

6HOI (PSOR\PHQW WR (GXFDWHG 8QHPSOR\HG
<RXWK 6FKHPH &O UHDG ZLWK
83 3XEOLF 0RQH\ 5HFRYHU\ RI 'XHV $FW
/RDQ JUDQWHG XQGHU WKH VFKHPH RQ
5HFRYHU\
VRXJKW DV DUUHDUV RI
ODQG
UHYHQXH
VFKHPH
GHFODUHG DV μ6WDWH
6SRQVRUHG 6FKHPH¶ XQGHU 83 $FW RI

ZHI

+HQFH UHFRYHU\
KHOG LOOHJDO
+HOG ±
7KH ORDQ DGYDQFHG WR WKH SHWLWLRQHU KDYLQJ
EHHQ VDQFWLRQHG RQ VW 0DUFK DQG QRW
DIWHU
WK
2FWREHU

WKH
UHFRYHU\
FHUWLILFDWH
XQGHU
WKH
83
3XEOLF
0RQH\
5HFRYHU\ RI 'XHV $FW IRU UHDOLVDWLRQ
RI WKH ORDQ DV DUUHDUV RI ODQG UHYHQXH FRXOG
QRW EH LVVXHG LQ YLHZ RI VXEFODXVH RI
FODXVH RI WKH 6FKHPH 3DUD
2ALL Prem Kumar V.State of U.P. through D.M., Fatehpur and others 3
By the Court

1. Heard Shri Sharad Verma, learned
counsel appearing for the petitioner, Shri
Sanjay Goswami, learned Standing Counsel
of the State of U.P., representing the
respondents No.1 and 2 and Shri Pradeep
Kumar Sinha, holding brief of Shri P.K.
Mukerji, learned counsel of the contesting
respondent No.3.

2. Through the impugned citation dated
26th November, 1991, a photocopy whereof is
annexure-2 to the petition, issued at the behest
of the contesting respondent No.3 a sum of
Rs.35,400 plus recovery charges is sought to
be recovered from the petitioner. Feeling
aggrieved by the impugned citation, the
petitioner has filed this petition under Article
226 of the Constitution of India.

3. The contention of the petitioner is that
the recovery proceeding in pursuance whereof
the impugned citation has been issued is
wholly illegal being contrary to sub-clause
(10) of Clause 19 of the Scheme for providing
Self Employment to Educated Unemployed
Youth (SEEUY) where under the amount
sought to be recovered was given to him by
way of loan. A copy of the Scheme is to be
found on record as Annexure-S.A. 1 to the
supplementary - affidavit filed by the
petitioner.

4. It is not disputed that the money sought
to be recovered from the petitioner as arrears
of land revenue was advanced to him by way
of loan by the respondent No.3 under the
Scheme for providing Self Employment to
Educated Unemployed Youth (SEEUY) and it
cane be recovered as arrears of land revenue
only if the Scheme is a "state Sponsored
Scheme" contemplated under the U.P. Public
Money (Recovery of Dues) Act, 1972,
hereinafter called the Act.

Sub-clause (10) of clause 19 of the
Scheme runs as under:-
"The Govt. of Uttar Pradesh has declared
the scheme as State sponsored under U.P.
Public Money (Recovery of Dues) Act, 1973
(U.P. Act 23 of 1972) amended by U.P.
Public
Money
(Recovery
of
Dues)
Amendment Act, 1975 (U.P. Act 17 of 1975)
as from the 17th October 1985. The Recovery
Certificate can be filed in respect of the loans
sanctioned after 17th October 1985 and not in
respect of loans sanctioned and disbursed
before 17th October 1985."

5. A bare perusal of sub-clause (10) of
Clause 19 of the Scheme, quoted above,
reveals that loan sanctioned and advanced
before 17th October 1985 can not be recovered
as arrears of land revenue in as much as the
Scheme was declared "State Sponsored
Scheme" under the Act only with effect from
17th October,1985.

6. In paragraph 4 of the petition it is
asserted that the loan was sanctioned on 31st
March 1984. Paragraph 11 of the counteraffidavit filed on behalf of the respondent
No.3 contains reply to the averments made in
paragraph 4 of the petition. The factum of
sanction of the loan to the petitioner under the
Scheme (SEEEUY) on 31st March 1984, when
the scheme was not declared to be a "state
Sponsored Scheme" under the Act, is not
denied.

7. The loan advanced to the petitioner
having been sanctioned on 31st March 1984,
and not after 17th October 1985, the recovery
certificate under the U.P. Public Money
(Recovery of Dues) Act 1972 for realisation
of the loan as arrears of land revenue could
not be issued in view of sub-clause (10) of
Clause 19 of the Scheme.

8. Therefore, the impugned recovery
proceedings in pursuance whereof impugned
citation has been issued is bad being in
contravention of sub-clause (10) of Clause 19
of the Scheme and can not be sustained.
4 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2000
9. In the result, the petition succeeds and
is
allowed.
The
citation
dated
26th
November,1991 (Annexure-2 to the petition)
is quashed. There is no order as to costs.
Petition Allowed.

25,*,1$/ -85,6',&7
25,*,1$/ -85,6',&7,21
,21
&,9,/ 6,'(
&,9,/ 6,'(
'$7(' $//$+$%$'
'$7(' $//$+$%$'
%()25(
%()25(
7+( +21·%/( $.<2* -
7+( +21·%/( $.<2* -

&LYLO 0LVF :ULW 3HWLWLRQ 1R RI

1DUHQGUD 9HHU 6LQJK 7RPDU
«3HWLWLRQHU
9HUVXV
$GK\DNVKD
-LOD
3DQFKD\DW
-LOD
3DULVKDG
(WDK DQRWKHU
«5HVSRQGHQWV

&RXQVHO IRU WKH 3HWLWLRQHU
0U %36LQJK
&RXQVHO IRU WKH 5HVSRQGHQWV
6&
0U 1 &KDXGKU\

$UWLFOH RI WKH &RQVWLWXWLRQ RI ,QGLD WKH
UHTXHVW RI WKH SHWLWLRQHU WR FKDQJH LQTXLU\
RIILFHU
DW
WKH
HDUOLHVW
RSSRUWXQLW\
ZDV
WXUQHGGRZQ 7KLV ZDV QRW MXVW DQG SURSHU ±
WKH SULQFLSOHV RI QDWXUDO MXVWLFH KDYH EHHQ
YLRODWHG WKH WHUPLQDWLRQ RUGHU EDVHG RQ D
YLWLDWHG LQTXLU\ UHSRUW FDQQRW EH VXVWDLQHG
DQG DFFRUGLQJO\ VHW DVLGH
+HOG ±
7KH UHTXHVW RI WKH SHWLWLRQHU WR FKDQJH WKH
(QTXLU\ 2IILFHU DW WKH HDUOLHVW RSSRUWXQLW\
ZDV WXUQHG GRZQ
7KLV LV QRW MXVW DQG
SURSHU &RQVHTXHQWO\ WKH WHUPLQDWLRQ RUGHU
ZKLFK LV EDVHG RQ D YLWLDWHG (QTXLU\ 5HSRUW
FDQQRW EH VXVWDLQHG DQG DFFRUGLQJO\ VHW
DVLGH3DUD )
&DVHV UHIHUUHG
$,5 6& S

By the Court

1. Both the Respondents are represented
by their counsel Shri N.S. Chaudhary,
Advocate and parties have exchanged Counter
and Rejoinder Affidavits. Writ Petition is
finally decided at Admission stage.

2. This petition has been filed against the
order of termination dated 07th May 1997
(Annexure-1 to the Writ Petition) dismissing
from service of concerned Zila Parishad of
Etah.

3. A preliminary objection has been raised
on behalf of the Respondents on the ground of
alternative remedy under Rule 42,U.P.Zila
Parishad Rules, 1070.

4.

The
learned
counsel
for
the
Respondents submitted that this petition
should not be entertained on any ground
whatsoever since the Petitioner had an
alternative remedy under Rule 42 Uttar
Pradesh Zila Parishad Services Rules, 1970.

5. This position has been disputed by the
learned counsel for the petitioner and it is
argued that this Court should not forestall the
hearing of the petition on the ground of
alternative remedy when the ground taken in
the
Writ
Petition
for
challenging
the
impugned order is, apart from other grounds,
violation of principles of natural justice.

6. Shri B.P. Singh learned counsel for the
petitioner places reliance on AIR 1993 SC
2155 Ratan Lal Sharma versus Managing
Committee (Paragraph 11)

7. Without recording facts in detail, it will
suffice to mention that the only point raised
by learned counsel for the petitioner at this
stage was relating to the prejudice and
personal interest of Sher Singh. The person,
who was appointed as Enquiry Officer in the
instant case and who submitted an adverse
report against the Petitioner which is the basis
of termination.

8. Relevant facts have been stated in
Paragraph 10 of the Writ Petition but the same
has not been categorically and specifically