# Harnam Das v. IInd A.D.J., Shahjahanpur and another - **Citation:** (2004) 2 ILRA 544 - **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad - **Decided:** 2004-08-11 - **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 23013 of 1988 - **Bench:** Anjani Kumar - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/harnam-das-v-iind-a-d-j-shahjahanpur-and-another-40418 - **Pages:** 2 ## Headnote U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act-1952, S.9- Objection questing the validity of lease- consolidation authorities have no jurisdiction to decide question of validity of lease or allotment made by the Gaon Sabha-writ allowed. Held- Para 4 The question about the jurisdiction of the consolidation authorities to go into the validity of the lease deed executed by Gaon Sabha has been subject matter of consideration before a Full Bench of this Court in the case of Similesh Kumar vs. Gaon Sabnha, Uskar, Ghazipur & others, reported in 1977 RD 408. The Full Bench held that consolidation authorities do not have jurisdiction to decide the question of validity of lease or allotment made by the Gaon Sabha and they cannot go beyond the same. The facts of the case being identical of the facts of case of Similesh Kumar (supra), the law declared by the Full Bench is applicable with full force. In view of the law laid down by the Full Bench, this writ petition deserves to be allowed. Case law discussed: 1977 RD 408 (All) (FB) ## Text http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2004 544 Aligarh to be decided in accordance with law after affording opportunity to the petitioner. Since the matter is fairly old, therefore, the Rent Control and Eviction Officer is directed to decide the same within three months from the date of presentation of certified copy of this order before him. Petition Allowed. --------- ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 11.8.2004 BEFORE THE HON'BLE ANJANI KUMAR, J. Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 23013 of 1988 Harnam Das ...Petitioner Versus IInd Additional District Judge, Shahjahanpur and another ...Opposite Parties Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri V.K. Barman Sri B.B. Jauhari Sri R.Mohan Sri H.P. Pandey Counsel for the Opposite Parties: Sri R. Asthana Sri S.P. Singh Sri G.N. Verma Sri A. Srivastava S.C. U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972-S. 20(d)- Suit for ejectment on ground of material alteration- For ejectment of tenant material alteration has to be of such a nature that diminishes value of accommodation in question- Neither any pleading nor any finding the revisional court in this regard- Hence impugned order quashed. Held. Para 3 However, to me it appears that the ground of material alteration does not sufficient for ejectment of the tenant even if the finding is that the tenant has materially altered the accommodation in question. In view of the provision of Section 20 (2) (d) of the Act, this material alteration is of such a nature, which diminishes the value of the accommodation in question. There is neither any pleading, nor any finding by the revisional Court, in this regard. In this view the matter, the order passed by the revisional Court deserves to be quashed. (Delivered by Hon'ble Anjani Kumar, J.) 1. Heard Sri Bhanu Bhushan Jauhari, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the State as well as Sri Ramendra Asthana, learned counsel for the contesting respondent. 2. The petitioner tenant aggrieved by an order passed by the revisional court dated 16th November, 1988, whereby the revisional court set aside the judgment and decree passed by the trial court dismissing the suit filed by the land lord for ejectment of the petitioner on the ground that there is material alternation, approached this Court by means of present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner argued that the finding regarding material alteration ifs perverse and based on a report, which cannot be said to have been proved according to the evidence, which is inadmissible and the said report was submitted by the Commissioner in connection with some other suit, he therefore submitted that this report is http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in 2 All] Harnam Das V. IInd A.D.J., Shahjahanpur and another 545 inadmissible. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to demonstrate that the evidence, which has been relied upon is inadmissible, as such this argument deserves to be rejected and is hereby rejected. However, to me it appears that the ground of material alteration does not sufficient for ejectment of the tenant even if the finding is that the tenant has materially altered the accommodation in question. In view of the provision of Section 20 (2) (d) of the Act, this material alteration is of such a nature, which diminishes the value of the accommodation in question. There is neither any pleading, nor any finding by the revisional Court, in this regard. In this view the matter, the order passed by the revisional Court deserves to be quashed. 4. In the result, the writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The order dated 16th November, 1988, Annexure-VI to the writ petition, passed by the revisional Court is quashed. The matter is send back to the revisional Court with the direction to decide the same afresh in the light of the observations made above. Since the matter if fairly old, the revisional Court shall decide the matter within three months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order. Petition Allowed. --------- ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 10.8.2004 BEFORE THE HON'BLE KRISHNA MURARI, J. Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 198 of 1977 Lalta Prasad and others ...Petitioner Versus The Deputy Director of Consolidation and others ...Respondents Counsel for the Petitioners: Sri I.N. Singh Sri Ajay Yadav Sri Anil Yadav Counsel for the Respondents: Sri Anuj Kumar Singh S.C. U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act-1952, S.9- Objection questing the validity of lease- consolidation authorities have no jurisdiction to decide question of validity of lease or allotment made by the Gaon Sabha-writ allowed. Held- Para 4 The question about the jurisdiction of the consolidation authorities to go into the validity of the lease deed executed by Gaon Sabha has been subject matter of consideration before a Full Bench of this Court in the case of Similesh Kumar vs. Gaon Sabnha, Uskar, Ghazipur & others, reported in 1977 RD 408. The Full Bench held that consolidation authorities do not have jurisdiction to decide the question of validity of lease or allotment made by the Gaon Sabha and they cannot go beyond the same. The facts of the case being identical of the facts of case of Similesh Kumar (supra), the law declared by the Full Bench is applicable with full force. In view of the law laid down by the Full Bench, this writ petition deserves to be allowed. Case law discussed: 1977 RD 408 (All) (FB) (Delivered by Hon'ble Krishna Murari, J.) 1. I have heard I.N. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. 2. The dispute in the present writ petition to plot no. 1679 M area 3-10-0 and plot no. 1677 M area 10-0-0 situate in village Lacchmanpatti, Tehsil Gyanpur