# Dr. Vishwanath Mishra v. XIIIth Additional District Judge Varanasi & Ors

- **Citation:** (2019) 2 ILRA 1474
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2019-09-19
- **Case number:** Writ-A No. 47311 of 2000
- **Bench:** Surya Prakash Kesarwani
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/dr-vishwanath-mishra-v-xiiith-additional-district-judge-varanasi-ors-44597
- **Pages:** 24

## Headnote

Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act. 1972 -
Section 16(1) B, Section 21- application for
release of the accommodation which was in
occupation of the tenant - Rent Revision
under Section 18 of the U.P. Urban
Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and
Eviction) Act. 1972 - Section 182 in The
Indian Contract Act, 1872 - Agent is the
extended hand of principal. (Para 5,6,19 & 23)

Held:- An agent who receives property or
money from or for his principal obtains no
interest for himself in the property. An agent
holds the principal's property only on behalf of
the principal. He acquires no interest for
himself in such property. He cannot deny
principal's title to property. Nor he can convert
it into any other kind or use. His possession is
the possession of the principal for all
purposes. The agent has no possession of his
own. Caretaker's possession is the possession
of the principal. The possession of the agent is
the possession of the principal and in view of
the fiduciary relationship he cannot be
permitted to claim his own possession. Thus,
agent is the extended hand of principal.
Therefore, father of the petitioner as agent
and even assuming the petitioner also to be an
agent, has acquired no interest in the disputed
property of the Principal and in view of his
fiduciary relationship, he cannot be permitted
to claim his own possession. (Para 33)

Writ petition dismissed (E-7)

List of Cases Cited: -

## Text

_Characters 0–39,988 of 81,154. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39988 for what follows._

1474 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
duty of prosecution to show and establish
that the proved circumstances are of a
definite tendency and they unerringly
point towards the guilt of the accused
persons and these circumstances, if taken
cumulatively are forming a chain, so
complete that there is no escape from the
conclusion that in all probability the crime
has been committed by the respondent
only and by none else and it is also
incapable of explanation of any other
hypothesis then that of the guilt of the
respondents.

Therefore keeping in view the
aforesaid facts and circumstances, the trial
court was justified in recording a finding of
acquittal as the prosecution failed to prove its
case
beyond
all
reasonable
doubts
specifically on the touchstone of the settled
principles pertaining to appreciation of
evidence with regard to circumstantial
evidence specially the ''last seen theory'.The
circumstances attempted to be proved are not
such whereby any other hypothesis is not
possible as there is sufficient time from 16 to
18 for any other person(s) to come into play
and commit the murder in the back ground
that deceased was stated to be of criminal
back ground. The judgment of the court
below can not be termed either perverse or
not based on evidence.

20. In view the above factual and legal
position, we are of considered opinion that the
prosecution has miserably failed to prove its
case beyond reasonable doubt and it cannot be
said that the view taken by the Trial Judge is
perverse or unreasonable. Per contra the view
taken by the trial Court is a possible view and
the judgment is well reasoned and well
discussed.

21. A criminal trial proceeds with
the presumption of innocence of the
accused persons and this presumption of
innocence
stands
fortified
with
the
acquittal of the accused persons. So, very
strong and cogent reasons must exist for
interfering in the judgment of acquittal.
Keeping in view the aforesaid inherent
weaknesses of the prosecution case, we
are of the considered view that the view
taken by the trial court was a probable and
logical view and the judgment of the trial
court cannot be said to be not based on
material on record or illegal or illogical or
improbable. Therefore, we are satisfied
that there is absolutely no hope of success
in this appeal and accordingly, no
interference in the judgment of the trial
Court is called for. Hence, the prayer for
grant of leave to appeal is hereby rejected
and the application to grant leave to file
appeal is dismissed.

22. Since application for grant of leave
to appeal has been rejected, the memorandum
of appeal also does not survive. Consequently,
the appeal is also dismissed.
----------
(2019)10ILR A 1474

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 19.09.2019

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SURYA PRAKASH
KESARWANI, J.

Writ-A No. 47311 of 2000

Dr. Vishwanath Mishra ...Petitioner
Versus
XIIIth Additional District Judge
Varanasi & Ors. ... Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri A.K. Rai, Sri Anil Kumar Rai, Sri S.N.
Singh, Sri Vishnu Singh, Sri Vimlendra Rai
2 All. Dr. Vishwanath Mishra Vs XIIIth Additional District Judge Varanasi & Ors.
1475
Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri Hem Pratap Singh, Sri Vipin
Sinha

A. U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of
Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act. 1972 -
Section 16(1) B, Section 21- application for
release of the accommodation which was in
occupation of the tenant - Rent Revision
under Section 18 of the U.P. Urban
Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and
Eviction) Act. 1972 - Section 182 in The
Indian Contract Act, 1872 - Agent is the
extended hand of principal. (Para 5,6,19 & 23)

Held:- An agent who receives property or
money from or for his principal obtains no
interest for himself in the property. An agent
holds the principal's property only on behalf of
the principal. He acquires no interest for
himself in such property. He cannot deny
principal's title to property. Nor he can convert
it into any other kind or use. His possession is
the possession of the principal for all
purposes. The agent has no possession of his
own. Caretaker's possession is the possession
of the principal. The possession of the agent is
the possession of the principal and in view of
the fiduciary relationship he cannot be
permitted to claim his own possession. Thus,
agent is the extended hand of principal.
Therefore, father of the petitioner as agent
and even assuming the petitioner also to be an
agent, has acquired no interest in the disputed
property of the Principal and in view of his
fiduciary relationship, he cannot be permitted
to claim his own possession. (Para 33)

Writ petition dismissed (E-7)

List of Cases Cited: -

1. Dr. Sita Ram Gandhi Vs IVth Addl. Distt.
Judge & anr. 1983 ARC 782

2. Brij Bhushan Sharma vs. Kamla Prasad
(2011) 3 ARC 381

3. M.M. Quasim Vs Manohar Lal sharma & ors.
(1981) 3 SCC 36

4. Purqan Ahmad alias Mana & anr. Vs VIIth
A.D.J. & ors. (2005) All LJ 119

5. Mam Chand Vs Pramodini Srivastava (2014)
5 ADJ 231

6.
Southern
Roadways
Ltd.
Madurai
represented by its Secretary Vs S.M. Krishnan
(1989) 4 SCC 603

7. Smt. Chandrakantaben Vs Vadilal Bapalal
Modi & anr. (1989) 2 SCC 630

8. Ichchapur Industrial Cooperative Society
Ltd. Vs Competent Authority Oil and Natural
Gas Commission & anr. (1997)2 SCC 42

9. K.V. Muthu Vs Angamuthu Ammal (1997) 2
SCC 53

10. Damadilal & Ors. VS Parashram & ors.
(1976) 4 SCC 855

11. Munnu Yadav Vs Ram Kumar Yadav & Anr
S.C.C. Revision No.86 of 2019

12. Raj Mohan Krishna Vs Second Addl. Distt.
Judge AIR 1993 All. 40

13. Khem Chand Vs IV A.D.J. (1989) 2 ARC
344

14. Vinod Kumar Agrawal Vs XVIIth Addl.
Distt. Judge Ald. (2013) 6 ALJ 110

(Delivered by Hon'ble Surya Prakash
Kesarwani, J.)

1. Heard Sri Vishnu Singh, learned
counsel for the petitioner and Sri Hem
Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the
respondent Nos.3/1, 3/2 and 4.

Facts:-

2. Briefly stated facts of the present
case are that one "Divan Vidyawati
Badrinath of Shrinagar (State of Jammu
and Kashmir)" was the original owner and
landlady of House No.CK-19/8, Mohalla
Thatheri Bazar, City Varanasi, which is a
1476 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
four storeyed building. The aforesaid
original owner and landlady appointed
one Sri Raghunath Mishra as her Agent to
look after and collect rent of the aforesaid
house and for that purpose, permitted him
to use one room of the house at the first
floor. The petitioner is the son of the
Agent Raghunath Mishra.

3. The aforesaid original owner and
landlady bequeathed the house in question
to "Sri Vikramajeet Singh, Sanatan
Dharm College, Kanpur" which She
mentioned in para (e) of her registered
will deed dated 11.02.1960, which was
approved by Hon'ble Jammu and Kashmir
High Court in case No.51 of 1964. In the
said document, it was also mentioned that
Raghunath Mishra son of Jawahar Lal
Mishra was occupying a portion in the
house in question as her Agent. When the
agent Raghunath Mishra did not furnish
account and rent, the original owner and
landlady terminated the agent and his
licence vide notice dated 29.05.1958.
Thereafter, she filed a suit being O.S.
No.35 of 1961 (Smt. Vidyawati Devi vs.
Raghunath Mishra) in the court of Civil
Judge, Varanasi for eviction of Raghunath
Mishra, which was decreed by judgment
and decree dated 17.05.1988 and she was
declared to be the owner of the house in
question and Raghunath Mishra to be her
Agent and Caretaker and the defendants
were
directed
not
to
interfere
in
realisation of rent. Against the judgment
dated 17.05.1988, the petitioner filed
Civil
Appeal
No.600
of
1988
(Vishwanath Mishra vs. Narendra Jeet
Singh) which was dismissed by judgment
dated 30.05.1998 passed by the A.D.J.
Vth Varanasi. Against this judgment, the
petitioner filed Second Appeal No.1196
of 1998 (Vishwanath Misra vs. Ratan
Shankar Chaurasia) in which an interim
order dated 03.09.1998 staying the decree
subject to depositing Rs.2,500/- per
month was passed. The said Second
Appeal is stated to be pending.

4. The aforesaid Sri Vikramajeet
Singh Sanatan Dharm College, Kanpur
passed a resolution dated 02.02.1983
authorising its President Narendra Jeet
Singh to execute sale deed of the house in
question in favour of Ratan Shankar
Chaurasiya and others (respondent Nos.3
and 4 herein) and accordingly a registered
sale deed of the house in question dated
25.03.1983 was executed in favour of the
aforesaid Ratan Shankar Chaurasiya and
others. The aforesaid purchasers got their
names mutated in records of Nagar
Mahapalika, Varanasi under the order of
the Tax Superintendent dated 06.07.1985.
As
per
order
of
the
Additional
Commissioner,
Nagar
Mahapalika,
Varanasi dated 05.11.1960, the name of
Raghunath
Mishra
(father
of
the
petitioner) was recorded as Agent of Smt.
Vidyawati Badrinath. As per copies of
assessments passed by Nagar Mahapalika,
Varanasi, the name of Raghunath Mishra
is mentioned as Agent of the original
owner and landlady Smt. Vidyawati
Badrinath.

5. In the house in question, one Smt.
Satyabhama Devi was a tenant of some
portion on the first floor who died on
02.01.1985. She was having no son but
only three daughters, who were married.
The petitioner Vishwnath Mishra filed
release
application
dated
10.01.1985
under Section 16(1)(b) of the U.P. Act 13
of 1972 for release of the accommodation
which was in occupation of the tenant late
Smt. Satyabhama Devi. In his release
application, the petitioner stated that
he is in bona fide need of the tenanted
2 All. Dr. Vishwanath Mishra Vs XIIIth Additional District Judge Varanasi & Ors.
1477
premises of the first floor for his
personal use. A release application was
also filed by the respondent Nos.3 and 4
(purchasers of the house by registered sale
deed dated 25.03.1983). The release
applications were registered as Case No.3
of 1985. By the impugned order dated
22.07.1988, the Rent Control and
Eviction
Officer/
City
Magistrate,
Varanasi
allowed
the
release
application of the respondent Nos.3 and
4 and rejected the release application of
the petitioner recording the conclusion as
under:-

 "eSaus leLr i=koyh dk lE;d vkoyksdu
fd;kA iz'uxr Hkou la0 lh0 ds0 19@8 BBsjh
cktkj 'kgj okjk.klh ds Hkou Lokeh ds fu/kkZj.k dks
dksbZ vf/kdkj bl U;k;ky; dks ugha gS ijUrq izFke
vfr0 flfoy tt] okjk.klh

egksn; ds vkns'k fnukad 17-5-1988 ds vUrxZr okn
la0&35 lu~ 1961 }kjk ;g rF; fufoZokn :i ls fl)
fd;k tk pqdk gS fd iz'uxr Hkou ds Hkou Lokeh izkFkhZ
Jh fo'oukFk feJ ugh a gS cfYd mUg sa mlls csn[ky
djus dk vkns'k ikfjr fd;k x;k gS bl izdkj izkFkhZ Jh
fo'oukFk feJ ds fueqZfDr izkFkZuk i= fnuk ad 10-1-85
dk s Lohdkj djus dk s dksbZ vkSfpR; gh ugh a gSA
nhokuh vnkyr ds vkns'k fnukad 17-5-1988 esa okn fcUnq
la0&20] 21 o 22 ds fu.kZ; esa U;k;ky; }kjk ;g fuf.kZr
fd;k x;k gS fd oknh la0&1 Jherh fnokfuuh cnzhukFk
lkfgck }kjk Jh ujsUnzthr flag dk s Hkou la0&lh0ds0
19@08 BBsjh cktkj] okjk.klh dk ,DthD;wVj mfpr
<ax ls fu;qDr fd;k x;kA bl izdkj Jh ujsUnzthr flag
dks vkifRrdrkZx.k Jh jru'kadj pkSjfl;k vkfn ds i{k
esa c;ukek fnukad 25-3-1983 dks djus dk Â1⁄4Jh
ujsUnzthr flag dksÂ1⁄2 iw.kZ vf/kdkj Fkk vkSj blds vk/kkj
ij iz'uxr Hkou ds orZeku Hkou Lokeh vkifRrdrkZx.k
Jh jru'k adj pkSfjfl;k vkfn fl) gksrs gSa vr% iz'uxr
Hkou dk og Hkkx tks Lo0 Jherh lR;Hkkek nsoh ds
fdjk;snkjh esa Fkk rFkk tks vc fjDr gS dks
vkifRrdrkZx.k Jh jru 'kdaj pkSjfl;k vkfn ds i{k esa
gh fueqZDr fd;k tkuk U;k;ksfpr gSA bl iz'uxr Hkou
Hkkx ds lEcU/k esa vU; vkosndksa dk vkoaVu izkFkZuk i=
fujLr gksus ;ksX; gSA

Lo0 Jherh lR;Hkkek nsoh }kjk iz'uxr Hkou
la[;k& lh0ds 19@8] BBsjh cktkj 'kgj okjk.klh
ds izFke ry dk ,d nks njh dejk] ,d dksBjh e;
nkyku o vU; Hkkx tks muds fdjk;snkjh esa Fkk]
vkifRrdrkZx.k Jh jtu 'kadj pkSjfl;k vkfn ds i{k
esa fueqZDr fd;k tkrk gSA vkiSpkfjd vkns'k fuxZr
gkAs "

6. Aggrieved with the aforesaid
order dated 22.07.1988 passed by the
Rent Control and Eviction Officer/ City
Magistrate, Varanasi, the petitioner filed
Rent Revision No.150 of 1988 (Dr.
Vishwanath Mishra vs. Rent Control and
Eviction
Officer/
City
Magistrate,
Varanasi and another) under Section 18 of
the U.P. Act 13 of 1972 in which he
claimed himself to be the landlord of the
house in question on the ground that his
grandfather Jawahar Lal Mishra and
thereafter his father Raghunath Mishra
and now he is in possession of the house
in question. The aforesaid Rent Revision
No.150 of 1988 (Dr. Vishwanath Mishra
vs. Rent Control and Eviction Officer/
City Magistrate, Varanasi and another),
was dismissed by the impugned judgment
dated 24.10.2000 passed by the XIIIth
Additional District Judge, Varanasi. The
revisional court recorded its findings as
under:

 "eSaus ,d i{kh; izkFkhZ dks lquk ,oa i=koyh
dk v/;;u fd;kA
fookfnr edku lh-ds- 19@8 BBsjh cktkj] 'kgj
okjk.klh esa fLFkr gS] bl ij fookn ugha gSA iz'uxr
Hkou ds ftl va'k ds ckjs esa] ftldk fooj.k izkFkhZ
ds fueqZfDr izkFkZuk&i= ds vUr esa fn;k x;k gS]
fueqZfDr vkns'k pkgk x;k gS mlesa Jherh lR;Hkkek
fdjk;snkj jgha] ftudh e`R;q gks xbZ] bl ij Hkh
fookn ugha gSA izkFkhZ fuxjkuhdrkZ dh vksj ls ;g
dgk x;k fd voj U;k;ky; us i=koyh ij miyC/k
lk{; dks utjUnkt djrs gq, euekus rjhds ls
fu.kZ; fn;k gS] tcfd fookfnr edku dk okdbZ
ekfyd rjhd izkFkhZ fo'oukFk feJ gSaA vc ns[kuk gS
fd D;k fookfnr edku dk Lokeh i=koyh ij
miyC/k lk{; ls izkFkhZ fl) gksrk gSA ;g lR; gS
fd vf/kfu;e la[;k&13@72 dh /kkjk&16 1⁄411⁄21⁄4ch1⁄2 esa
fueqZfDr vkns'k ikfjr djrs le; dsoy yS.MykMZ
1478 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
ns[kk tkuk vko';d gS] LokfeRo ns[kuk vko';d
ughaA ysfdu pwafd bl ekeys esa foi{khx.k jru'kadj
pksjfl;k vkfn us izkFkhZ dks edku ekfyd dk ds;j
Vsdj 1⁄4,tsUV1⁄2 crk;k gS] blfy, fueqZfDr izkFkZuk&i=
ds fujLrkj.k esa i=koyh ij miyC/k lk{; ls
LokfeRo ij fopkj djuk vko';d gS] D;ksafd ,tsUV
/kkjk 3 1⁄4ts1⁄2 ,DV ua0&13@1972 ds vuqlkj
yS.MykMZ rks gks ldrk gS] ysfdu blh /kkjk&3 1⁄4th1⁄2
ds vuqlkj ,tsUV yS.MykMZ /kkjk& 16 1⁄4v1⁄2 vFkok
/kkjk&21 ds vUrxZr viuh vko';drk o mi;ksx ds
fy, fueqZfDr dk izkFkZuk &i= ugha ns ldrk gSA
izkFkhZ us ;g dgk gS fd fookfnr edku ds ekfyd
igys mlds ckck tokgj feJ Fks mlds ckn mlds
firk j?kqukFk feJ gq, vkSj vc og ekfyd gSA
LokfeRo oknh ds ckck dks dSls izkIr gqvk] blds ckjs
esa dgha dqN oknh us ugha dgkA tc fd foi{khx.k us
lwph 149 ls 19 vnn dkxtkr nkf[ky fd;k gS
ftlesa izFke dkxt izkFkZuk i= j?kqukFk lEor 1986
dk gS] ftlesa j?kqukFk feJ us tks izkFkhZ ds firk gS
;g lkQ Lohdkj fd;k gS fd fookfnr edku dh
feyfd;r ls mUgsa dksbZ rkYyqdkr o okLrk ljksdkj
ugha gSA dkxt la[;k&156 gqdqeukek vlk<+ 15
lEor
1986
ckcr
fu;qfDr
j?kqukFk
feJ
,tsUV@ds;j Vsdj gSA dkxt la[;k&159 udy
olh;rukek gS] ftls fo|korh nsoh us ch-,l-,l-Mh-
dkyst dkuiqj ds i{k esa fookfnr edku dk
fu"ikfnr fd;k gSA 35 lu~ 1961 ewy okn dh izfr
dkxt la[;k&162 gS] ftls fo|korh nsoh us oknh o
mlds firk ds fo:) nkf[ky fd;k gSA blds
vykok dkxt la[;k&168 yxk;r 188 fglkc ,oa
i= gSa] ftls j?kqukFk feJ us nhokfuuh fo|korh nsoh
o LVsV tEew d'ehj dks Hkstk gSA dkxt la[;k&194
dj fu/kkZj.k vf/kdkjh dks lu~ 1959 esa Hkstk x;k
i= gSA blesa j?kqukFk feJ us vius dks ,tsUV vkQ
vejukFk fookfnr edku ds lEcU/k esa crk;k gSA bu
reke vfHkys[kh; lk{;] ftldk fooj.k voj
U;k;ky; us ugha fd;k gS] ls Li"V gks tkrk gS fd
fookfnr edku nhoku LVsV tEew d'ehj dk jgk]
ckn esa Jherh fo|korh nsoh nhokfuuh dks izkIr gqvk
vkSj fnokfuuh us bl edku dh olh;r
ch0,l0,l0Mh0 dkyst dkuiqj ds i{k esa dj nhA
;g lHkh vfHkys[k o rF; 147 x 'kiFk i= rks jru
'kadj pkSjfl;k }kjk fd;k x;k gS ls lefFkZr gSA
izkFkhZ dh vksj ls vij vk;qDr ds fu.kZ; fnukafd 511-60 dk gokyk nsrs gq, dgk x;k fd fookfnr
edku ij uxj egkikfydk ds dkxtkr esa mldk
uke ntZ gSA esjs fopkj ls ;g fu.kZ; tks dkxt
la[;k 207 gS izkFkhZ dks ykHk ugha nsrk] D;ksafd blesa
izkFkhZ ds firk j?kqukFk feJ dk uke crkSj ,tsUV
Jherh fo|korh nsoh vafdr gSA f}rh; nkf[ky
[kkfjt vihy dk fu.kZ; fnukafdr 24-4-91 tks
f}rh; vij ftyk tt] okjk.klh }kjk jru 'kadj
pkSjfl;k cuke uxj egkikfydk vkfn esa ikfjr
fd;k x;k gS rFkk y?kqokn U;k;k/kh'k }kjk fo'oukFk
feJ
cuke
txr
fd'kksj
feJ
y?kqokn
la[;k&495@79 esa tks fu.kZ; fnukad 24-8-91 dks
fn;k x;k gS] buds vk/kkj ij Hkh fookfnr edku dk
Lokeh izkFkhZ ugha dgk tk ldrk] cfYd ek= og
,tsUV jgkA uxj ikfydk] okjk.klh ds dj fu/kkZj.k
iaftdk dh udy izkFkhZ us nkf[ky fd;k gS] ftlesa
Hkh j?kqukFk feJ ,tsUV cnzhukFk vafdr gSA bl rjg
i=koyh ij miyC/k lk{; ftudk fopkj.k voj
U;k;ky; esa ugha fd;k gS] ls Hkh bl Lrj ij ;g
Li"V gS fd oknh vius firk ds le; ls ek=
fookfnr edku dk ,tsUV gSA /kkjk 3 1⁄4ts1⁄2 vf/kfu;e
la[;k&13@72 esa og ,tsUV ds ukrs yS.MykMZ gS]
ysfdu mls viuh vko';drk o t:jr ds fy,
edku dks fueqZDr djkus dk vf/kdkj ugha gSA izkFkhZ
dk ;g dFku fd voj U;k;ky; dk fu.kZ; LokfeRo
ds lUnHkZ esa lk{; ds foijhr gS] ,slk ugha dgk tk
ldrkA voj U;k;ky; us ewy okn la[;k&35@61
esa ikfjr fu.kZ; ds vk/kkj ij viuk vkns'k ikfjr
fd;k gSA mDr fu.kZ; esa Jherh fo|korh nsoh dks
fookfnr edku dk ekfyd ?kksf"kr fd;k x;k gSA
izkFkhZ dh vksj ls ;g dgk fd mDr fu.kZ; dh fMdzh
dk fdz;kUo;u ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; ds vihy
la[;k&600@88 fo'oukFk cuke ujsUnzthr esa ikfjr
vkns'k ls LVs gS] blfy, mDr ewy okn 35@61 ds
vk/kkj ij ikfjr voj U;k;ky; dk fu.kZ; voS/kkfud
gSA esjs fopkj ls izkFkhZ dh ;g cgl Hkh mfpr ugha
gS] D;ksafd ewy okn la[;k 35@61 esa mijksDr fMdzh
vikLr ugha gqbZ gS] bldk fdz;kUo;u Hkh LFkfxr
ugha gS] cfYd bl fMdzh ds vk/kkj ij djk;s tkus
okys fu"iknu dks ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; us vius
vkns'k fnukafdr 19-12-88 ls LFkkfxr fd;k gSA vr%
,slk ugha ekuk tk ldrk fd ekeyk la[;k 35@61
esa fo}ku flfoy tt }kjk ikfjr fu.kZ; lekIr gks
pqdk gSA izkFkhZ dh vksj ls fu.khZr fof/k ,-vkj-lh-
1980 i`"V 388 Jherh dsylk'oklh cuke prqFkZ vij
ftyk tt vkfn] ,-vkj-lh- 1981 i`"V&43 dqoaj
xqykc cuke ftyk vkiwfrZ vf/kdkjh vkfn ,-vkj-lh-
1980 i`"V&502 rstHkku enu cuke f}rh; vij
ftyk tt bykgkckn vkfn] ,-vkj-lh- 1982
i`"V&120 j?kqukFk izlkn cuke izFke vij ftyk
tt] uSuhrky dk gokyk fn;k x;kA bu lHkh
fu.khZr fofy;ksa esa ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; us ewyr%
;g fl)kUr izfrikfnr fd;k gS fd tgka LoRo
lEcU/kh ew<+ iz'u ckn esa mBrk gS ogka LoRo lEcU/kh
2 All. Dr. Vishwanath Mishra Vs XIIIth Additional District Judge Varanasi & Ors.
1479
,sls iz'u dks fu.khZr djuk fueqZfDr izkFkZuk&i= ds
fuLrkj.k ds nkSjku mfpr ugha gS D;ksafd ;g laf{kIr
dk;Zokgh gSA esjs fopkj ls mDr fu.khZr fof/k;ksa dk
ykHk orZeku ekeys esa izkFkhZ dks ugha fn;k tk ldrk]
D;ksafd ;gka i=koyh ij miyC/k lk{; ls
izkFkZuk&i= ds fuLrkj.k ds fy, LokfeRo dk
fu/kkZj.k djuk iwjh rjg lEHko gSA bl Lrj ij ;g
iz'u fu.khZr fd;k tk ldrk gS fd izkFkhZ ,tsUV gS
;k ekfydA okLro esa Loro dk fu/kkZj.k ewy okn
la[;k&35@61 dh fMdzh ls gks pqdk gS] ftldk
fu.kZ; Hkh i=koyh ij miyC/k gSA vr% ,slk ugha
dgk tk ldrk fd voj U;k;ky; us LoRo ds ckjs
esa vius {ks=kf/kdkj dk vfrdze.k djrs gq, fu.kZ;
fn;k gSA

vxyk fcUnq vo/kkj.k gsrq ;g gS fd D;k Lo0
lR;Hkkek o izkFkhZ dk fj'rk fdjk;snkj o yS.MykMZ
dk jgk rFkk jru'kadj pkSjfl;k vtuxh O;fDr gSa
vkSj muls bl edkku ls dksbZ eryc ugha gSA tgka
rd lR;Hkkek o izkFkhZ ds chp fdjk;snkj o yS.MykMZ
ds fj'rs dk iz'u gS] ;g i=koyh ij miyC/k lk{;
ls lkfcr gS] ysfdu izkFkhZ yS.MykMZ fdjk;k olwyus
ds fy, ,tsUV dh gSfl;r ls Fkk] okLrfod Lokeh
dh gSfl;r ls ughaA izkjEHk eas lR;Hkkek dh nks
yM+fd;ksa us vkifRr nkf[ky djds izkFkhZ ds
izkFkZuk&i= dk fojks/k fd;k FkkA fnus'k dqekj foeyk
vxzoky ds iq= us dkxt la[;k&40 x viuk
'kiFk&i= nsdj foi{kh jru'kadj pkSjfl;k ds dsl
dks Lohdkj fd;k gS vkSj ;g dgk gS fd fookfnr
edku nhoku LVsV tEew d'ehj dh lEifRr gS vkSj
izkFkhZ ek= mldk ds;jVsdj o ,tsUV gSA ckn esa
fnus'k dqekj vxzoky us viuk ,d 'kiFk i= nsdj
izkFkhZ ds dsl dks Lohdkj fd;k gS] ysfdu bl
LohdkjksfDr ls dksbZ vlj ugha iM+rk gS vkSj blls
izkFkhZ fookfnr edku dk okLrfod Lokeh ugha cu
tk;sxkA vf/kd ls vf/kd o ,tsUV@ds;jVsdj
gksxkA tSlk fd eSaus crk;k gS fd ,tsUV vius
mi;ksx o vko';drk ds fy, /kkjk&161⁄421⁄21⁄4ch1⁄2 ds
vUrxZr Hkou dks fueqZDr ugha djk ldrkA jru
'kadj pkSjfl;k ds lEcU/k esa oknh dh vksj ls ;g
dgk x;k fd ;g edku o fdjk;snkj ds fy,
vtuch O;fDr gSA bl lUnHkZ esa tks izkFkhZ dk dFku
gS ;g Hkh ekuus ;ksX; ugha gSA Jherh fo|korh nsoh
nhokfuuh us ,d olh;rukek fnukad 3-10-60 dks
fu"ikfnr djds fookfnr edku dk LokfeRo ch-,l-
,l-Mh- dkyst dkuiqj dks ns fn;kA mudh e`R;q ds
ckn edku ekfyd ch-,l-,l-Mh- dkyst gqvk vkSj
ch-,l-,l-Mh- dkyst ds lfpo rFkk v/;{k ujsUnz
thr flag us ,d cSukek fnukad 25-3-83 dks
fu"ikfnr djds fookfnr Hkou jru'kadj pkSjfl;k o
muds iq=ksa dks csp fn;kA cSukek dh Nk;k izfr
dkxt la[;k&113 i=koyh esa nkf[ky gSA bl rjg
fookfnr edku ds lUnHkZ esa jru 'kadj pkSjfl;k dks
vtuch O;fDr ugha dgk tk ldrkA izkFkhZ dh vksj
ls ;g dgk x;k fd jru'kadj pkSjfl;k vkfnus ewy
okn la[;k&35@61 esa i{k cuus dk izkFkZuk i= fn;k
Fkk] ftls fo}ku flfoy tt }kjk Lohdkj dj fy;k
x;k Fkk] ftlds fo:) fuxjkuh ekuuh; mPp
U;k;ky; esa izkFkhZ us nkf[ky dh vkSj jru'kadj
pkSjfl;k vkfn i{k ugha cu ik;sA esjs fopkj ls
blls dksbZ vUrj ugha iM+rk gSA ;fn ewy okn
la[;k&35@61 ds okn fcUnqvksa dk fuLrkj.k jru
'kadj pkSjfl;k dks fcuk i{k cuk;s fd;k tk ldrk
Fkk rks mUgsa i{k ughsa cuk;k x;k] ysfdu muds i{k
u cuk;s tkus ls mudk cSukek ,oa fookfnr Hkou ds
lUnHkZ esa fn;k x;k vf/kdkj lekIr ugha gks tk;sxkA
izkFkhZ dh vksj ls ,d rF; ;g j[kk x;k fd cSukek
fu"ikfnr djus ls jksdus ds fy, ewy okn la[;k
223@79 fo'oukFk feJ cuke ujsUnz thr flag
nkf[ky fd;k x;k Fkk] ftlesa cSukek fu"iknu ls
izfroknh dks jksdk x;k FkkA blds ckotwn izfroknh
us fu"iknu fd;k] vr% cSukek 'kwU; gS] esjs fopkj ls
,slk ugha gSA nkSjku okn dksbZ cSukek tgka fu"ikfnr
gqvk gS ogka okn ds vfUre fu.kZ; ij mldk vfLrRo
fuHkZj djrk gS] ewyr% cSukek 'kwU; ugha gSA bl rjg
esjs fopkj ls fookfnr lEifRr dk LokfeRo cSukes ds
ckn ls jru'kadj pkSjfl;k vkfn ds ikl o izkFkhZ dh
vksj ls ,d cgl ;g dh xbZ fd jru'kadj pkSjfl;k
}kjk fueZqfDr dk dksbZ izkFkZuk i= ugha fn;k x;k Fkk]
blds ckotwn Hkh voj U;k;ky; us mlds i{k esa
fueqZfDr vkns'k fn;kA esjs fopkj ls voj U;k;ky;
dk vkns'k bl vk/kkj ij voS/kkfud ugha gS D;ksafd
/kkjk 16 1⁄421⁄21⁄4ch1⁄2 dh dk;Zokgh laf{kIr dk;Zokgh gksrh
gSA blesa vkifRr o izkFkZuk i= ij fopkj djus ds
mijkUr ;fn U;k;ky; vkifRr drkZ ds rF; dks
lgh ekurk gS rks fueqZfDr vkns'k vkifRrdrkZ ds i{k
esa fd;k tk ldrk gS rFkk bl vk/kkj ij voj
U;k;ky; dk vkns'k voS/kkfud ugha gSA

izkFkhZ i{k dh vksj ls ,d rF; ;g j[kk x;k
gS fd voj U;k;ky; ds fo:) mUgksaus LFkkukUrj.k
izkFkZuk i= ftykf/kdkjh egksn; ds ;gka izLrqr fd;k
FkkA ftykf/kdkjh us i=koyh ryc dh Fkh] ysfdu
bl LFkkukUrj.k ds rF; dks utjvUnkt djrs gq,
voj U;k;ky; }kjk fu.kZ; ikfjr fd;k x;k gS
ftlls izkFkhZ dk fgr izHkkfor gqvk gSA esjs fopkj ls
izkFkhZ dk ;g Hkh dFku ekuus ;ksX; ugha gS D;ksafd
LFkkukUrj.k izkFkZuk i= ij Qkby ryc gksus ls
1480 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
vFkok LFkkukUrj.k izkFkZuk&i= fn;s tkus ls
U;k;ky; dksbZ fu.kZ; nsus ls oafpr ugha gks tkrk]
tc rd fd eqdnes dh dk;Zokgh dks izoj U;k;ky;
LFkfxr u dj nsA oSls Hkh tks fu.kZ; voj U;k;ky;
}kjk fn;k x;k gS] mlls ,slk ugha yxrk fd ukjkt
gksdj vFkok lk{; o fof/k ds fl)kUrksa dh
frykatyh nsdj vkns'k ikfjr fd;k x;k gSA ,slk Hkh
ugha gS fd LFkkukUrj.k izkFkZuk&i= fn;s tkus ds
ckotwn voj U;k;ky; }kjk fu.kZ; ikfjr djus ls
voS/kkfud rjhds ls izkFkhZ dk fgr izHkkfor gqvk gSA

mijksDr foospuk ls esjs fopkj ls fo}ku fdjk;k
fu;a=.k ,oa fu"dklu vf/kdkjh }kjk fn;k x;k
fu.kZ; iw.kZr;k rF; o fof/k ds vuqlkj gSA fu.kZ;
ikfjr djus esa fdjk;k fu;a=.k ,oa fu"dklu
vf/kdkjh us vius {ks=kf/kdkj ds ijs dk;Z ugha fd;k
gS vkSj u {ks=kf/kdkj dk iz;ksx djus esa vlQy gq,
gSaA

fu"d"kZr% ;g fuxjkuh cyghu gS vkSj fujLr
fd;s tkus ;ksX; gSA

 vkns'k

fuxjkuhdrkZ dh ;g fuxjkuh lO;; fujLr dh
tkrh gSA fueqZfDr okn la[;k&3@85 fo'oukFk feJ
cuke +ljdkj esa fdjk;k fu;a=.k o fu"dklu
vf/kdkjh }kjk fnukad 22-7-88 dks ikfjr fu.kZ; iq"V
fd;k tkrk gSA"

7. Aggrieved with the order of the Rent
Control and Eviction Officer/ City Magistrate,
Varanasi dated 22.07.1988 under Section
16(1)(b) of the U.P. Act XIII of 1972 in Case
No.3 of 1985 rejecting the release application
of the petitioner dated 08.01.1985 and the
impugned judgment dated 24.10.2000 in Rent
Revision No.150 of 1988 passed by the XIIIth
Additional District Judge, Varanasi, the
petitioner had filed the present writ petition
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
which has been subsequently amended as a
petition under Article 227.

8. By order dated 30.11.2012 passed
by this court, the petition was dismissed,
which was challenged by the petitioner in
Civil Appeal No.1328 of 2017. By order
dated 01.02.2017 passed by Hon'ble
Supreme Court, the aforesaid order of this
court dated 30.11.2012 was quashed and
the matter was remanded with the
following observations:

"Having regard to the circumstances
of the case, we are satisfied that the
impugned order of the High Court suffers
from a misdirection in law. What was
necessary for the High Court was to
determine as to who is the landlord of the
premises in question that is to say to
whom the rent of the building was
payable.
It
was
not
necessary
to
determine the question of title in such a
situation which is secondary. Thus, it
would have been appropriate in the
interest of justice if the High Court has
determined this question.

In the facts and circumstances of the
case, we consider it appropriate to set
aside the impugned judgment and order
passed by the High court and remand the
case back to the High court for a decision
on the question as to who is the landlord
of the premises in question. We order
accordingly. The High Court shall also
decide the application afresh for release
of the premises in question in accordance
with such finding. The High Court is
requested to decide the matter as
expeditiously as possible on its own
merits and in accordance with law.

With the aforesaid directions, the
appeal is disposed of. "

9. A counter affidavit on behalf of
respondent Nos. 3/1, 3/2 and 3/4 dated
3011.2017 has been filed which has been
replied by the petitioner by rejoinder
affidavit dated 4.2.2018. Paragraph Nos. 6
2 All. Dr. Vishwanath Mishra Vs XIIIth Additional District Judge Varanasi & Ors.
1481
and 7 of the counter affidavit and its reply
in paragraph no.7 of the aforesaid
rejoinder affidavit are reproduced below:

Counter Affidavit Rejoinder Affidavit
Para-6.That when
agent Raghu Nath
Mishra did not
furnish
account
and rent, the land
lady, vide notice
dated 29/05/1958
terminated
thelicense
and
filed a suit no.35
of
1961
(Smt.
Vidyawati
Devi
v/s Raghu Nath
Mishra)
for
ejectment
and
arrear
of
rent,
before
Civil
Judge, Varanasi.
During pendency
of
suit
Smt.
Diwan Vidyawati
Badi Nath died
on
14/06/1964,
substituted
by
Narendra
Jeet
Singh and Sushil
Devi and later on
answering
respondents were
also
substituted
after purchase of
the
premises
through
registered
sale
deed
dated
06.04.1983.

Para-7.
That
during pendency
 Para-7.
That
the
contents
of
paragraph nos. 6 and
7 of the counter
affidavit are matter
of record which may
verified
therefrom.
However it is further
submitted that there
is
no
transfer
deed/alleged
will
deed alleged to be
executed by Smt.
Diwan
Vidyawati
Badri Nath, Srinagar
(Jammu & Kashmir)
in
favour
of
B.S.S.D.
College,
Kanpur, hence the
sale
deed
dated
06.04.1983 executed
in
favour
of
answering
respondent by the
said
college/Sri
Narendra Jeet Singh
is without any basis
and
is
void
document
and
confirms no right,
titled and interest in
favour
of
the
answering
respondent.
of above noted
suit before trial
court,
Sri
Narendra
Jit
Singh, Secretary
of the B.S.S.D
College,
on
06/04/1983
executed
a
registered
sale
deed in favour of
answering
respondent
namely
Sri
Ratanshankar
Chaurasia
(respondent no.3,
now deceased )
and his three sons
namely,
Bhola
Nath
Chaurasia,
Jawahar
Lal
Chaurasia, Gopal
Ji
Chaurasia,
jointly.
A
true
copy
of
the
registered
sale
deed
dated
06/04/1983
is
being
filed
as
Annexure
No.CA-1 to this
Counter affidavit.

Submission
on
behalf
of
the
Petitioner:-

10. Learned counsel for the
petitioner submits as under:

(i) The petitioner being an agent of
the owner of the house in question
namely, Smt. Vidyawati Badrinath, is the
landlord of the disputed house and,
1482 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
therefore his release application under
Section 16(1)(b) of the Act, should have
been allowed by the Rent Control and
Eviction Officer, Varanasi. Reliance is
placed upon a judgment of this Court in
Ram Prakash Gupta v. District Judge,
Kanpur, 2004 (1) ARC 409 (Paragraph
No.5) in which it has been held that under
Section 3(j) of the Act, a person
authorised
to
manage
the
tenanted
property and to collect its rent on behalf
of the landlord is also landlord under
Section 3(j) of the Act.

(ii) In the impugned judgment dated
24.10.2000 in Rent Revision No.150 of
1988, the revisional court has held the
petitioner to be landlord as evident from
the finding recorded at running page-120
of the petition. Therefore, there was no
occasion for the court below to uphold the
order passed under Section 16(1)(b) of the
U.P. Act 13 of 1972 dated 22.07.1988 in
Case No.3 of 1985 passed by the Rent
Control
and
Eviction
Officer/
City
Magistrate, Varanasi.

(iii) In another S.C.C. Suit No.495 of
1979 (Dr. Vishwanath Mishra vs. Jagat
Kishore Mishra) decided on 24.08.1991
the petitioner was held to be the landlord.
Therefore, while passing the impugned
judgment dated 24.10.2000, the revisional
court should have accepted the petitioner
as landlord of the disputed house No.CK19/8, Thatheri Bazar, City Varanasi.

(iv) The release application under
Section 16(1)(b) of U.P. Act 13 of 1972
was filed by the petitioner on 10.01.1985
for
release
of
the
disputed
accommodation in occupation of the
tenant Late Smt. Satyabhama Devi, for
the self need. Therefore, it was liable to
be allowed.

(v) The release applications under
Section 16(1)(b) were filed by the petitioner
as well as by the respondent Nos.3 and 4.
The petitioner has shown his bona fide need
but the respondent Nos.3 and 4 have not
shown their bona fide need in their release
application
for
the
disputed
accommodation. Consequently, the release
application of the petitioner was liable to be
allowed and the release application of the
respondent Nos.3 and 4 was liable to be
rejected. But the court below has committed
manifest error of law to uphold the order of
the Rent Control and Eviction Officer
allowing the release application of the
respondent Nos.3 and 4.

(vi) No finding on the point of
bonafide need of the respondent Nos.3
and 4 was recorded by the Rent Control
and Eviction Officer or the court below in
the impugned judgments. Therefore, the
release order in favour of the respondent
Nos.3 and 4, itself was bad.

11. In support of his submission that
the petitioner is the landlord of the
disputed house, learned counsel for the
petitioner has relied upon a judgment of
this court in Dr. Sita Ram Gandhi vs.
IVth Additional District Judge and
another, 1983 ARC 782 (Para-10) and
Brij Bhushan Sharma vs. Kamla Prasad,
2011 (3) ARC 381 (Paras- 8, 9 and 10).

12. Neither any other point has been
argued nor any other judgment has been
cited before me by learned counsel for the
petitioner except those afore-noted.

Submission on behalf of the ownerrespondents:-

13. Learned counsel for the
respondents submits as under:
2 All. Dr. Vishwanath Mishra Vs XIIIth Additional District Judge Varanasi & Ors.
1483

(i) Smt. Diwan Vidyawati Badri Nath
was undisputedly owner and landlady of
the house in question. Raghunath Mishra
(father of the petitioner) was the agent of
the aforesaid owner and landlady. Due to
non furnishing the account and rent, the
aforesaid landlady vide notice dated
29.5.1958
terminated
the
agent
Raghunath Mishra and his licence and
filed a suit No.35 of 1961 for ejectment
and recovery before the Civil Judge,
Varanasi.

(ii) During pendency of the suit, Smt.
Diwan Vidyawati Badri Nath died on
14.6.1964. She was substituted by Sri
Narendra Jeet Singh, Secretary of B.N.S.D.
College, Kanpur after the house was
purchased by the respondents by registered
sale deed dated 6.4.1983, their name was
substituted. Averments made paragraph Nos.
6 and 7 of the counter affidavit dated
30.11.2017, have been admitted by the
petitioner in paragraph no.7 of his rejoinder
affidavit.
Thus,
undisputedly,
Sri
Raghunath Mishra was the agent and his
agentship terminated by the owner and
landlady Smt. Diwanani Vidyawati Badri
Nath. Therefore, the petitioner is not
landlord and his release application was
lawfully rejected by the court below.

(iii) The findings recorded by the
Rent Control and Eviction Officer/City
Magistrate, Varanasi and the revisional
court, are the findings of fact based on
consideration of relevant evidences on
record, whereby it has been held that the
respondent purchaser of the property, are
the owner and landlord and not the
petitioner. These findings of facts are
based
on
consideration
of
relevant
evidences on record, which cannot be
interfered with in jurisdiction under
Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

(iv) In the judgment dated 17.5.1988
in Suit No.35 of 1961 (Smt. Vidyawati
Devi v. Raghu Nath Mishra), the Civil
Judge,
Varanasi
also
declared
the
aforesaid original owner and landlady to
be the owner of the disputed house.

(v) Aggrieved with the judgment in
O.S. No.35 of 1961, the petitioner herein
filed a Civil Appeal No.600 of 1988
(Vishwanath Mishra v. Narendra Jeet
Singh ), which was dismissed
by
juddgment dated 30.05.1998 passed by
the
Vth
Additional
District
Judge,
Varanasi and it was concluded that Smt.
Diwan Vidyawati Badri Nath was the
owner of the disputed house and Sri
Jawahar Mishra and Raghunath Mishra
were her agent and care-taker of the
property who used to submit account to
her. It was also found that the petitioner
herein admitted the fact that the account
of rental income was being submitted to
the aforesaid original owner and landlady.
In this regard learned counsel for the
respondents has specifically referred to
findings of the appellate court at internal
page 22 of the jdugment dated 30.05.1998
in Civil Appeal No.600 of 1988.

(vi)
Merely
because
the
agent
Raghunath Mishra was collecting rent of
the disputed house for and on behalf of
the original owner and landlady, he or his
son i.e. the present petitioner shall not
become landlord within the meaning of
Section 3(j) of U.P. Act 13 of 1972.

14. Reliance is placed on the
judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in
M.M. Quasim v. Manohar Lal sharma
and
others,
(1981)
3
SCC
36
(Paragraph nos. 15,16,17 and 18) and
judgments of this Court in Purqan
Ahmad alias Mana and another v.
1484 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
VIIth A.D.J. and others (2005) All LJ
119 (Paragraph Nos. 8 and 9) and Mam
Chand v. Pramodini Srivastava, (2014)
5 ADJ 231.

DISCUSSION AND FINDINGS

15. I have carefully considered the
submissions of the learned counsels for
the parties and perused the record.

16. It has been admitted before this
Court,
as
also
reflected
from
the
submission of the learned counsel for the
petitioner noted in paragraph 9(i) above,
that Diwanani Smt. Vidyawati Badri Nath
of Jammu & Kashmir, was the owner and
landlady of the disputed house. She had
appointed Grandfather of the petitioner
and thereafter father of the petitioner as
her agent and care-taker of the disputed
house. These agents were looking after
the house and used to collect rent and
submit account to the original owner and
landlady. In paragraph-6 of the counter
affidavit, the respondents have stated that
when agent Raghunath Mishra (father of
the petitioner ) did not furnish account
and rent, the landlady Smt. Diwan
Vidyawati Badri Nath terminated his
licence. This fact has been admitted by
the petitioner in para 7 of the rejoinder
affidavit. The petitioner has claimed that
he being an agent is the landlord and,
therefore his release application dated
10.1.1985 filed for personal need of the
portion falling vacant on account of the
death of the tenant Smt. Satyabhama Devi
on 02.01.1985, should have been allowed.
Thus, on the afore-noted admitted facts
of the case, the question to be
determined in this petition in terms of
the direction of Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the order dated 1.2.2017, is as
under :
Question:-

"Whether the petitioner being an agent of
the original owner and landlady of the house
in question, is landlord within the meaning
of Section 3(j) of U.P. Act 13 of 1972 ?"

17. The aforesaid question has been
framed with the consent of the learned
counsels for the parties for determination
in this petition.

Status of Agent/ the petitioner:-

18. Chapter X of the Act,1872
contains detail provision with regard to
agent and agency.

19. The word 'agent' has not been
defined in U.P. Act 13 of 1972. It has
been defined in Section 182 of the Indian
Contract Act, as under:

 Section
182
in
The
Indian
Contract Act, 1872

182. "An ''agent' is a person employed to
do any act for another, or to represent another
in dealings with third person. The person for
whom such act is done, or who is so
represented, is called the ''principal'."

20. Since, in the present petition the
dispute is limited to the question of an
agent to be landlord in terms of Section
3(j) of the Act, therefore, it would be
appropriate to examine as to whether an
agent or caretaker may interfere in
Principal's property and what would be
the nature of his possession. These
questions
have
been
considered
exhaustively by Hon'ble Supreme Court.

21. In Southern Roadways Ltd.,
Madurai, represented by its Secretary
2 All. Dr. Vishwanath Mishra Vs XIIIth Additional District Judge Varanasi & Ors.
1485
v. S.M. Krishnan, (1989) 4 SCC 603
(Paragraph Nos. 11,12,14,18 and 22),
Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under :

"11. At the outset, we may state that
we are not so much concerned with the
rival claims relating to actual possession
of the suit premises. Indeed, that is quite
irrelevant for the purpose of determining
the rights of the company to carry on its
business. Mr. Venugopal, learned counsel
for the appellant also discreetly did not
advert to that controversy. He, however,
rested his case on certain facts which are
proved or agreed. They may be stated as
follows:

The company was and is the tenant
of the suit premises and has been paying
rent to the owner. The lease in respect of
the premises has been renewed up to
November 22, 1993. it was the company
which has executed the lease and not the
respondent. The respondent as agent was
allowed to remain in possession of the
premises. It was only for the purpose of
carrying on company,s business. His
agency has been terminated and his
authority to act for the company has been
put an end to. These facts are indeed not
disputed. On these facts the contention of
counsel is that when the agency has been
terminated, the respondent has no right to
remain in premises or to interfere with the
business activities of the company.

12. The force of this argument
cannot be gainsaid. Counsel, in our
opinion, appears to be on terra firma. The
principal has right to carry on business as
usual after the removal of his agent. The
Courts are rarely willing to imply a term
fettering such freedom of the principal
unless there is some agreement to the
contrary. The agreement between the
parties in this case does not confer right
on
the
respondent
to
continue
in
possession of the suit premises even after
termination of agency. Nor does it
preserve right for him to interfere with the
company's business. On the contrary, it
provides that the respondent could be
removed at any time without notice and
after removal the company could carry on
its business as usual. The company under
the terms of the agreement is, therefore,
entitled to assert and exercise its right
which cannot be disputed or denied by the
respondent.

14. There is yet another significant
factor to be borne in mind when we deal
with the rights of an agent. An agent who
receives property or money from or for
his principal obtains no interest for
himself in the property.