# Jamuna Ram v. Smt. Shanti Devi & Ors

- **Citation:** (2022) 11 ILRA 51
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2022-09-30
- **Case number:** Matters U/A 227 No. 863 of 2022
- **Bench:** J.J. Munir
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/jamuna-ram-v-smt-shanti-devi-ors-47856
- **Pages:** 7

## Headnote

A. Civil Law - U.P. Urban Buildings
(Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction)
Act, 1972-Section 3(a)(1)-Constitution of
India,
1950-Article
227-whether
the
petitioner
upon
his
father's
demise,
inherited the tenancy along with his
brother as a joint tenant-In case of a
residential building, not all heirs of the
deceased tenant are entitled to inherit the
tenancy-the petitioner is an heir of the
deceased tenant, being his son, but the
revisional
court
finds
no
direct
documentary evidence, such as a rent
receipt
or
a
municipal
record
of
assessment to indicate that the tenant
was ever recorded as such-the tenant
lived with his father in the one room
accommodation, when he passed away,
along with his brother, is a matter to be
established by evidence-the date of death
is not on record which is material for the
tenant to establish his contemporaneous
ordinary
residence
in
the
demised
premises at the time of his father passed
away in order to succeed to a residential
tenancy u/s 3(a)(1) of the Act-Moreso,
rent receipt issued in the tenant's name
annexed with paper book is a forged and
fabricated
document-The
Court
disapproves the tenant's conduct in doing
so.(Para 1 to 23)

The writ petition is dismissed. (E-6)

List of Cases cited:
Sarla Devi Vs Pushpa Agnihotri (2008) 2 ARC
725

## Text

11 All. Jamuna Ram Vs. Smt. Shanti Devi & Ors.
51
both by the terms of dedication and the
subsequent use, where thousands repose
faith in Thakur Ji, would not be governed
by the Act of 1882. This is precisely what
the learned Additional District Judge has
held, and in the opinion of this Court,
rightly so. Mr. Goyal points out that the
public religious endowments are governed
by the Charitable and Religious Trusts Act,
1920 and certain other legislations also
apply. It is true that the petitioner's cause is
noble and requires urgent relief, but the
remedy he has been advised to invoke, is
not available at all in the present case.

12. In the circumstances, no case for
interference with the impugned order is
made out.

13. The petitioner will, however, be at
liberty to invoke all or any such remedy/
remedies, as may be advised to secure urgent
relief, unaffected by anything said in this
order or the learned District Judge's order.

14. This petition is disposed of,
accordingly.
----------
(2022) 11 ILRA 51
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 30.09.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE J.J. MUNIR, J.

Matters U/A 227 No. 863 of 2022

Jamuna Ram ...Petitioner
Versus
Smt. Shanti Devi & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Tariq Naiyer, Sri Himanshu Kumar, Sri
Deepak Pandey, Sri Zafar M. Naiyar (Sr.
Advocate)
Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Vinay Kumar Gupta, Sri Atul Dayal (Sr.
Advocate)

A. Civil Law - U.P. Urban Buildings
(Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction)
Act, 1972-Section 3(a)(1)-Constitution of
India,
1950-Article
227-whether
the
petitioner
upon
his
father's
demise,
inherited the tenancy along with his
brother as a joint tenant-In case of a
residential building, not all heirs of the
deceased tenant are entitled to inherit the
tenancy-the petitioner is an heir of the
deceased tenant, being his son, but the
revisional
court
finds
no
direct
documentary evidence, such as a rent
receipt
or
a
municipal
record
of
assessment to indicate that the tenant
was ever recorded as such-the tenant
lived with his father in the one room
accommodation, when he passed away,
along with his brother, is a matter to be
established by evidence-the date of death
is not on record which is material for the
tenant to establish his contemporaneous
ordinary
residence
in
the
demised
premises at the time of his father passed
away in order to succeed to a residential
tenancy u/s 3(a)(1) of the Act-Moreso,
rent receipt issued in the tenant's name
annexed with paper book is a forged and
fabricated
document-The
Court
disapproves the tenant's conduct in doing
so.(Para 1 to 23)

The writ petition is dismissed. (E-6)

List of Cases cited:
Sarla Devi Vs Pushpa Agnihotri (2008) 2 ARC
725

(Delivered by Hon'ble J.J. Munir, J.)

1. This petition under Article 227 of
the Constitution is directed against the
order dated 25.10.2021 passed by the
Additional District Judge, Court No. 14,
Kanpur Nagar in Rent Revision No. 36 of
2014,
dismissing
the
Revision
and
52 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
affirming the order of vacancy dated
01.07.2014 and release dated 30.09.2014
passed by the Rent Control and Eviction
Officer, Kanpur Nagar (for short, 'the RC &
EO') in proceedings under Sections 12/16
of The Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings
(Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction)
Act, 1972 (U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972) (for
short, 'the Act').

2. The facts giving rise to this
petition, briefly said, are that a typed
written statement was presented by Smt.
Shanti Devi, widow of the late Vidya Sagar,
respondent no.1 to this petition, before the
RC & EO, stating that she is the co-owner
of House No. 74/137(1), Dhankutti, Kanpur
Nagar (for short, 'the demised premises').
The demised premises, on the ground floor,
has a single room with an abutting platform
(Chabutra), demised to one Ganga Ram.
Since Ganga Ramm has built his own
house, bearing House No. 2/292, Sector H,
Jankipuram, Lucknow, he has shifted to
Lucknow way back in the year 1998 along
with his family. The demised premises are
in possession of Ganga Ram's brother,
Jamuna Ram. In view of the provisions of
Section 12(3) of the Act, the demised
premises would be deemed vacant. The
said written statement submitted to the RC
& EO was supported by the statements of
one Ramesh Chandra Gupta and another
Gopal Chandra Mishra. The RC & EO
called for a report from the Rent Control
Inspector.

3. The Rent Control Inspector
submitted a report to the effect that the
demised premises was in the tenancy of the
late Mahaveer Prasad. Ganga Ram and
Jamuna Ram are his sons. Both of them
are,
therefore,
tenants.
The
demised
premises are situate on a plot of land,
which has a room and an adjoining
Chabutra. It was also reported by the Rent
Control Inspector that upon both the wives
of Vidya Sagar and their sons saying that
Rakesh Kumar Gupta was the owner, he
tendered rent to Rakesh Kumar Gupta.
Since Rakesh Kumar Gupta refused to
accept the tendered rent, Jamuna Ram was
depositing the same in the Court of the
Civil Judge (Jr. Div.), Kanpur Nagar under
Section 30(1) of the Act. The Rent Control
Inspector further reported that Jamuna
Ram's stand was affirmed by a certain
Kamla Devi and Tara Devi. The RC & EO
did not accept Jamuna Ram's case that the
demised premises were let out to his father
and upon his demise, both his sons Ganga
Ram and himself, had inherited the tenancy.

4. It was remarked by the RC & EO
that Jamuna Ram had not produced any
evidence to show that the then landlord,
Rameshwar Prasad Verma had issued any
rent receipt in favour of his father,
Mahaveer Prasad. No allotment order
issued by the competent Authority in
favour of Mahaveer Prasad was produced
either. In the opinion of the RC & EO, the
absence of evidence in support of Jamuna
Ram's pleaded case of an inherited tenancy
from his father, the premises were liable to
be declared vacant. Accordingly, vide order
dated 01.07.2014, vacancy was declared.
This order was followed by an order of
release passed by the RC & EO on
30.09.2014.

5. Both these orders were challenged
by Jamuna Ram, the present petitioner and
his brother Ganga Ram together, by means
of Rent Revision No. 36 of 2014, instituted
before the Court of the District Judge,
Kanpur Nagar. The said revision was heard
and dismissed by the learned Additional
District Judge, Court No.14, Kanpur Nagar
vide judgment and order dated 25.04.2017.
11 All. Jamuna Ram Vs. Smt. Shanti Devi & Ors.
53

6. Dissatisfied with the concurrent
orders made by the RC & EO and the
learned Additional
District
Judge
in
revision, Jamuna Ram alone preferred a
petition
under
Article
227
of
the
Constitution before this Court being Matter
under Article 227 No. 3725 of 2017. The
said petition was allowed by an order dated
11.09.2019 with a remand to the Court of
Revision on the short ground that there
were various evidence produced by the
tenant-petitioner mentioned in the order of
the RC & EO dated 01.07.2014, but neither
the RC & EO nor the Judge in Revision had
considered these. It was, therefore, held to
be a case of non-consideration of evidence.

7. Post remand, the matter went back
to the learned Additional District Judge,
Court No.14, Kanpur Nagar, who after
hearing parties and perusing the record, has
dismissed the Revision and once again
affirmed the orders of vacancy and release
dated
01.07.2014
and
30.09.2014,
respectively.

8. Aggrieved, this petition under
Article 227 of the Constitution has been
instituted by Jamuna Ram (for short, 'the
tenant').

9. Heard Mr. Zafar M. Naiyar, Senior
Advocate assisted by Mr. Deepak Pandey,
learned Counsel for the tenant-petitioner
and Mr. Atul Dayal, Senior Advocate
assisted by Mr. Vinay Kumar Gupta,
learned
Counsel
for
the
landlordrespondents.

10. It is submitted by Mr. Zafar M.
Naiyar, learned Senior Advocate that the
ration card issued on 22.11.2015, Annexure
No. 13 to the petition, the Voter Card issued
on 19.12.2011, part of Annexure No. 12 to
the petition, School Certificates for the
years prior and subsequent to 2005, Rent
Receipts issued by the landlady/ landlord,
part of Annexure No. 12 to the petition,
School Education Certificate starting from
1976 to 1983, Water Tax Payment Receipts
and Electricity Payment Receipts, along
with the statements of the tenant-petitioner
recorded by the Rent Control Inspector
during his inspection for the determination
of vacancy, clearly indicate that the
petitioner's father was a tenant in the
demised premises and he died leaving
behind two sons, to wit, Ganga Ram, the
elder son and the tenant, the younger son.
The elder brother, Ganga Ram, who is an
employee of State Bank of India, holds a
transferable post. He has been transferred
to Lucknow and stays at his place of
posting. The tenant is the other joint tenant
along with Ganga Ram and is entitled to
live in the premises in his own right. It is
urged
that
the
Court
below
has
acknowledged
the
fact
that
these
documents have been placed on record, but
has not considered all these pieces of
documentary evidence, crucial to the issue,
resulting in miscarriage of justice.

11. It is argued that after the death of
Mahaveer Prasad, the tenant, his younger
son, stayed in the demised premises and
paid rent through his elder brother, Ganga
Ram. Upon refusal to receive rent by the
landlord, it was deposited under Section 30
of the Act. It is also argued by the learned
Senior Advocate that the fact of shifting of
one of the joint tenants to any other district
does not create vacancy. Even if it be
accepted that Ganga Ram had moved away,
the tenant's right, as a joint tenant would
not be annihilated. No vacancy, therefore,
can be said to arise. It is emphasized that
the case that after Mahaveer Prasad's
demise, his elder son Ganga Ram became
the tenant, is misconceived, inasmuch as on
54 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
the death of Mahaveer Prasad, the tenancy
devolved upon both of his sons, including
the tenant. It is argued emphatically that the
earlier orders of this Court passed in
Matters under Article 227 No. 3725 of
2017, have been observed in breach by the
Revisional Court, who has decided, yet
again, ignoring relevant and material
evidence from consideration. According to
the learned Senior Advocate appearing for
the tenant, non-consideration of material
evidence by the Judge in the Court of
Revision, vitiates the order impugned.

12. Mr. Atul Dayal, learned Senior
Advocate appearing on behalf of the
respondent-landlords,
has
refuted
the
submissions advanced on behalf of the
tenant and argued that assuming that the
tenant's father, the late Mahaveer Prasad
was the original tenant, the tenant would
have to prove that he was residing in the
demised premises at the time of his father's
death in view of the provisions of Section
3(a)(1) of the Act. It is argued that there is
not a solitary piece of evidence to show
that the petitioner was residing in the
demised premises at the time his father
passed away. It is pointed out that the sale
deed relating to the demised premises dated
21.06.1986, which mentions the name of
the tenants, mentions Ganga Ram, but not
the tenant. It is further argued that on a
more pragmatic note, once it has come on
record that Ganga Ram was residing in the
demised premises till 1998, it is difficult to
believe
that
the
single
room
accommodation could have housed the two
brothers and their families.

13. It is next submitted on behalf of
the respondent-landlord that assuming that
the tenant was a joint tenant with Ganga
Ram, though evidence to the contrary is
overwhelming, even then in the case of one
of the two tenants acquiring another
accommodation, a deemed vacancy would
occur under Section 12(3) of the Act. In
support of the above contention, reliance
has been placed on the decision in Sarla
Devi vs. Pushpa Agnihotri, 2008 (2) ARC
725.

14. This Court has considered the
rival submissions advanced on behalf of
both parties and perused the orders
impugned as well as the records annexed.

15. About the High School Certificate
and the Scholar Transfer Certificates that
the tenant has relied upon, the Revisional
Court has remarked that mention of the
demised premises as the tenant's address
there is of little consequence, because these
documents are not documents, showing
either allotment in the tenant's favour or his
tenancy rights. These documents are based
on information given to the School. This
Court is of opinion that the Scholar
Transfer Certificate relates to the period
1976 to 1983 and would show that while a
student in the School, the tenant was
residing with his father, Mahaveer Prasad,
about whom there is documentary evidence
that he was the recorded tenant in the
demised premises. There are some other
documents, such as a Ration Card dated
22.11.2005, Voter ID Card issued by the
Election Commission of India in the year
1995, some water tax receipts issued by the
Kanpur Nagar Nigam in the tenant's name
for the year 2018, besides a caste certificate
of the year 1978. The old documents, as
already said, would show that the tenant
did reside at some point of time with his
father, when a young student. So far as the
later documents, such as the Ration Card
and even the Voter ID Card or the Water
Tax
Receipts
are
concerned,
these
documents can very well be believed to be
11 All. Jamuna Ram Vs. Smt. Shanti Devi & Ors.
55
issued on the given address, because the
tenant's father was a tenant in the demised
premises.

16. The question is whether the
petitioner
upon
his
father's
demise,
inherited the tenancy along with his brother
as a joint tenant? The provisions of Section
3(a) of the Act read:

"3. Definitions.--In this Act,
unless the context otherwise requires--

(a) "tenant", in relation to a
building, means a person by whom its rent
is payable, and on the tenant's death--

(1) in the case of a residential
building, such only of his heirs as normally
resided with him in the building at the time
of his death;

(2) in the case of a non-residential
building, his heirs;

17. It would be seen that in the case of
a residential building, not all heirs of the
deceased tenant are entitled to inherit the
tenancy. No doubt, the petitioner is an heir
of the deceased tenant, Mahaveer Prasad,
being his son, like his elder brother, Ganga
Ram, but as remarked by the Revisional
Court, there is no direct documentary
evidence, such as a rent receipt or a
municipal record of assessment to indicate
that the tenant was ever recorded as such.
To the contrary, Ganga Ram's name finds
mention in the sale deed dated 21.06.1986
as the tenant in the demised premises, but
not that of the tenant. In none of the
municipal assessment records, the name of
Jamuna Ram finds place. No doubt, in the
three quinquennial house tax assessment
relating to the demised premises for the
year ending 1948, the years 1948 to 1953
and the years 1968 to 1973, the name of
Mahaveer Prasad alone is recorded as the
tenant. It appears that Ganga Ram's name is
also not there in the Municipal Record, but
does find mention in the sale deed dated
21.06.1986, as already said, which is one
regarding transfer of title relating to the
demised premises. The rent receipts, that
have been issued either by the former
owner and landlord or the transferee
landlord, the name of the tenant shown is
Mahaveer Prasad, but not the tenant's. It is
true that in the absence of succession to the
tenancy being recorded in the Municipal
Records or a rent receipt being there, the
tenant could still have proven that he had
inherited the tenancy, as he says, along with
his brother, Ganga Ram. But, to do that, he
would have to show that he normally
resided with the last recorded tenant,
Mahaveer Prasad at the time of his death.
Conspicuously, the tenant has not disclosed
anywhere, nor has it otherwise come on
record, when Mahaveer Prasad died. The
date of death becomes material for the
tenant, because he would have to establish
his contemporaneous ordinary residence in
the demised premises at the time his father
passed away in order to succeed to a
residential tenancy under Section 3(a)(1) of
the Act. There is absolutely no evidence
about the tenant's ordinary residence with
his father at the time of his father's demise.

18. There are two classes of
documents filed by the tenant. One relates
to the period of time when he was a
student-rather
a
school
going
one.
Decidedly, at that time, he would have
stayed with his father. But, those do not
show that he was ordinarily residing with
his father when he passed away. There is no
presumption in the contemporaneous world
that a tenant would be living in his
residential premises with all his heirs,
including all his sons. There has to be
evidence about it. In certain situations, it
can be readily established. In others, it
56 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
might require a onerous standard of proof.
Here, the standard would be more onerous,
because the demised premises are a one
room
accommodation.
To
establish,
therefore, that the tenant lived with his
father in the one room accommodation,
when he passed away, along with his
brother, is a matter to be established by
evidence. There is no such evidence on
record. As already remarked, the first step
for the tenant to establish the fact was to
plead and establish the date of his father's
death, which is not there. The other class of
documents, by which the tenant has tried to
collaterally establish his residence with his
father are contemporaneous documents
about payment of water tax, electricity
bills, ration card, all of which could be
issued on the tenant's representations to the
Authorities concerned. These do not show
that the tenant was residing with his father
when the latter passed away.

19. There is one more aspect of the
matter and that is that many of these
documents were sought to be brought on
record before the Revisional Court through
an application under Order XLI Rule 27
CPC. Amongst these documents, was the
caste
certificate,
scholar
registration,
transfer certificates and a rent receipt, said
to be issued in the year 1984. Some of
these have been commented upon by this
Court earlier in this judgment. The
application
to
bring
on
record
the
additional evidence was rejected by the
Revisional
Court
vide
order
dated
03.01.2017, but some of these documents
were considered by the Revisional Court
despite rejection of the said application,
and,
therefore,
this
Court
has
also
expressed opinion with regard to them.

20. This Court also notices that along
with the counter affidavit, the respondents
have annexed a rent receipt, also issued in
the name of Ganga Ram for the period
01.08.1987 to 13.11.1987, but there is
nothing on record to show that it was on
record before the Revisional Court. This
Court, therefore, does not wish to comment
any further about the said document. There
is a very startling averment in Paragraph
No. 12 of the counter affidavit, which says
that a rent receipt dated 15.12.2012 issued
in the tenant's name and annexed at Page
No. 89 of the paper book is a forged and
fabricated document. It was never placed
on record before the Courts below and,
therefore, not considered in any of the
orders impugned. A perusal of the said
receipt at Page No. 89 does show that it
purports to be issued in the tenant's name
by the landlord, Rakesh Kumar Gupta for
the period 01.07.2012 to 30.09.2012. The
rate of rent mentioned there is Rs.20/- and
the total sum paid is Rs.60/-. None of the
Courts below mention this document,
which would have turned tables, if it were
there on record before those Courts.

21. In Paragraph No. 4 of the rejoinder
affidavit, where together with many other
paragraphs, Paragraph No. 12 of the counter
affidavit has been responded to, there is no
explanation about this discordant document,
which the Courts below have not mentioned.
Apparently, the receipt at Page No. 89 of the
paper-book relied upon by the tenant is a
document of questionable character. It should
not have been placed on record before this
Court by the tenant. This Court disapproves
the tenant's conduct in doing so.

22. In consequence of all that has been
said, this Court does not find any good
ground to interfere with the orders impugned.

23. This petition fails and is
dismissed with costs.
11 All. Mahesh Sharma & Anr. Vs. U.O.I. & Ors.
57

24.

The
interim
order
dated
24.02.2022 passed by this Court is hereby
vacated.
----------
(2022) 11 ILRA 57
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 20.09.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE AJIT KUMAR, J.

Matters U/A 227 No. 6427 of 2022 (Civil)
Alongwith other cases

Mahesh Sharma & Anr. ...Petitioners
Versus
U.O.I. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri Kshitij Shailendra

Counsel for the Respondents:
A.S.G.I., Sri Aditiya Kumar Singh

A. Civil Law - Public Premises (Eviction of
Unauthorized
Occupants)
Act,
1971Petitioners are occupants of the premises
as a tenant or licensee of the railways and
the proceedings under the Act, 1971 were
claimed to be not as per the procedure
prescribed for and they appealed against
the orders passed by prescribed authorityApex Court observed in many cases that
the interest of occupants should be looked
into and therefore, interim order should
be granted so as to not to defeat very
purpose of filing the appeal-remedy of
appeal which is statutory in nature can
not be rendered as an empty formalityjudicial approach requires that during the
pendency of the appeal the operation of
an order having serious civil consequences
must be suspended-Nobody would doubt
if unauthorized occupants are liable to be
evicted but Rule of Law demands that the
procedure
prescribed
for,
must
be
followed.(Para 1 to 13)

The writ petitions are disposed of. (E-6)
List of Cases cited:
Mool Chand Yadav & anr. Vs Raza Buland Sugar
Co. Ltd. & ors. (1983) AWC 121

(Delivered by Hon'ble Ajit Kumar, J.)

1. Heard Sri Iqbal Ahmad and Sri
Kishitij Shailendra, learned counsel for the
respective petitioners appearing in this
petition as well as in connected petitions
and Sri P.N. Rai, Sri Aditya Kumar Singh,
Sri Ajay Kumar Gautam, Sri Gyanendra
Kumar Dwivedi, Sri Hridaya Narayan
Mishra, Sri Ram Sarana, Sri Prahlad Singh,
Sri Sukhdev Singh, Sri Ishwar Das, Sri
Ajay Singh, Sri Arvind Singh, Sri Purnendu
Kumar Singh, Akhilesh Kumar Mishra, Sri
Ram Kinkar Shukla, Sri Shushil Kumar
Pandey, Sri Pranat Chaudhari-I, Sri Ashish
Tripathi, and Smt. Archana Srivastava,
learned
counsel
appearing
for
the
respective respondents in all the connected
petitions.

2. All these petitions raise common
question of law and facts and, therefore,
they are being disposed by this common
order.

3. The petitioners before this Court
are occupants of the premises either as a
tenant or licensee of the respondent-
railways and the proceedings that have
been drawn against them under the Public
Premises
(Eviction
of
Unauthorized
Occupants) Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred
to as 'Act, 1971') were claimed to be not as
per the procedure prescribed for and hence
they have all appealed against the orders
passed by the prescribed authority.

4. It is argued before this Court that
though appellate authority, namely, District
Judge, Moradabad has admitted the appeals