# Laxmi Narain Sahu and Ors v. A.D.J. IV and Ors

- **Citation:** (2013) 3 ILRA 1159
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2013-09-04
- **Case number:** Rent Control No. 74 of 1993
- **Bench:** Sibghat Ullah Khan
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/laxmi-narain-sahu-and-ors-v-a-d-j-iv-and-ors-42673
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

U.P. Act No 13 of 1972-Section 21-
Release application bonafide need-filed
by father-complicated question of heirs
as well as relationship of land lord and
tenant-prescribed
authority
without
touching the question of bonafide need
and comparative hardships of partiesrent appeal allowed and remanded to
decide all questions-writ against order of
remand-held-in view of law laid down by
Apex Court finding of JSCC subject to out
come of civil court-as such order by rent
appeal court-not sustainable-quasheddirection issued accordingly.

Held: Para-7
Accordingly in view of Budhu Mal vs.
Mahavir Prasad AIR 1988 Supreme Court
1772 plaint should have been returned for
filing
before
regular
Civil
Court
in
accordance with Section 23 Provincial Small
Causes Courts Act. However, now at this
distant juncture no useful purpose would be
served
by adopting the said course.
Supreme Court in Shamim Akhtar vs. Iqbal
Ahmad AIR 2001 SC 1 has held that
findings regarding title recorded by JSCC in
the suit in between landlord and tenant is
subject to the result of regular suit based
on title. Same principle will apply when
such finding is recorded by P.A. in a case
under Section 21 of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972.
Case Law discussed:
AIR 1988 SC 1772; AIR 2001 SC 1.

## Text

3 All] Laxmi Narain Sahu and Ors. Vs. A.D.J. IV and Ors.
1159
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 04.09.2013

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SIBGHAT ULLAH KHAN, J.

Rent Control No. 74 of 1993

Laxmi Narain Sahu and Ors.....Petitioners
Versus
A.D.J. IV and Ors.
 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri D.C. Mukherjee

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri K.P. Srivastava, Sri K.P. Singh

U.P. Act No 13 of 1972-Section 21-
Release application bonafide need-filed
by father-complicated question of heirs
as well as relationship of land lord and
tenant-prescribed
authority
without
touching the question of bonafide need
and comparative hardships of partiesrent appeal allowed and remanded to
decide all questions-writ against order of
remand-held-in view of law laid down by
Apex Court finding of JSCC subject to out
come of civil court-as such order by rent
appeal court-not sustainable-quasheddirection issued accordingly.

Held: Para-7
Accordingly in view of Budhu Mal vs.
Mahavir Prasad AIR 1988 Supreme Court
1772 plaint should have been returned for
filing
before
regular
Civil
Court
in
accordance with Section 23 Provincial Small
Causes Courts Act. However, now at this
distant juncture no useful purpose would be
served
by adopting the said course.
Supreme Court in Shamim Akhtar vs. Iqbal
Ahmad AIR 2001 SC 1 has held that
findings regarding title recorded by JSCC in
the suit in between landlord and tenant is
subject to the result of regular suit based
on title. Same principle will apply when
such finding is recorded by P.A. in a case
under Section 21 of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972.
Case Law discussed:
AIR 1988 SC 1772; AIR 2001 SC 1.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Sibghat Ullah Khan, J.)

1. At the time of hearing, no one
appeared on behalf of contesting respondents
(legal representatives of respondent no.2).
Even though the case was taken up in the
revised cause list. Accordingly the arguments
of learned counsel for the petitioners were
heard.

2. Petitioner no. 2 M/s Firm Chandu
Lal Nagar Mal through petitioner no.2(1) to
2(4) is the tenant. Other petitioners are rival
claimants
to
the
ownership
of
the
accommodation
in
dispute.
Release
application under Section 21 of U.P. Act No.
13 of 1972 was filed by original respondent
no. 2 Prem Chand Sahu son of Nand Kishor
Sahu since deceased and survived by legal
representatives. In the release application,
copy of which is Annexure 9 to the writ
petition tenant petitioner no. 2
was
impleaded as opposite party no.1 and Laxmi
Narain Sahu petitioner no.1 was impleaded
as opposite party no. 2.

3. Landlord applicant Prem Chand Sahu
was nephew of opposite party no. 2/petitioner
no. 1 Laxmi Narain Sahu. Initially the
accommodation in dispute belonged to the
three brothers i.e. petitioner no.1 Laxmi Narain
Sahu, Nand Kishor Sahu father of applicant
respondent no. 2 Prem Chand Sahu and
Jamuna Prasad Sahu (petitioners no. 5 to 7 are
his
legal
representatives).
Through
an
arbitration award of 1964 partition of the
accommodation in dispute took place between
the three brothers which was made rule of the
Court on 1.6.1967. In the award it was
provided that if certain amount which was
payable by Nand Kishor to Laxmi Narain Sahu
was not paid within the time fix therein, share
1160 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
of Nand Kishor would go to Laxmi Narain
Sahu. Default was committed by Nand Kishor
hence decree dated 1.6.1967 was put in
execution (Execution Case No. 20 of 1970) and
in the execution possession was delivered to
petitioner no.1, through order dated 29.8.1970.
Nand Kishor Sahu challenged the arbitration
award through Civil Suit No. 247 of 1964
which was dismissed on 17.12.1970 by
Munsif, Sitapur against which Civil Appeal
No.11 of 1971 was filed which was dismissed
on 24.5.1976.

4. The applicant respondent no. 2 in the
release application giving rise to the instant writ
petition took up the case that unregistered
agreement had been executed by petitioner
no.1 on 31.10.1975 recognizing the right of his
father Nand Kishor in the house in dispute. The
prescribed authority Munsif, Sitapur where
release application had been registered as Case
No. 8(R/C) of 1983 Prem Chand Sahu vs. Firm
Chandu Lal Nagar Mal and others dismissed
the release application on 3.1.1989 holding that
no agreement was executed as opposite party
no.2/petitioner no.1 denied the signatures on
the agreement of 1975 and secondly such an
agreement could be arrived at only through
registered document. The prescribed authority
after recording the said finding did not say a
single
word
about
bonafide
need
or
comparative hardship. Against the said order,
respondent no. 2 filed R/C Appeal No. 2 of
1989. IV ADJ, Sitapur through judgment and
order dated 28.11.1992 allowed the appeal, set
aside the order of prescribed authority and
remanded the matter to the prescribed authority
to decide all the questions together i.e. right of
the
applicant
his
bonafide
need
and
comparative hardship after holding that validity
and genuineness of the agreement of 1975
should have been decided by the prescribed
authority on merit. The said order of the
appellate court has been challenged through
this writ petition.

5. I do not agree with the remand order
passed by the lower appellate court. It is
utterly illegal. The prescribed authority after
giving reasons held that the alleged
agreement had not been executed by
petitioner no.1 and it was not valid for want
of registration. Lower appellate court did not
say anything in this regard.

6.

However
in
my
opinion,
complicated
question
of
title
was
involved. In view of earlier litigation in
between father of respondent no. 2 and
petitioner no. 1 and the alleged agreement
of 1975. Respondent no. 2 was himself
aware of the complicated nature of the
title dispute in between him and petitioner
no. 1 hence he himself impleaded
petitioner no.1 as opposite party no. 2 in
the release application. Earlier suit for
eviction had been filed by petitioner no. 1
against the petitioner no. 2 (para 8 of the
writ petition) which was compromised.

7. Accordingly in view of Budhu Mal
vs. Mahavir Prasad AIR 1988 Supreme Court
1772 plaint should have been returned for filing
before regular Civil Court in accordance with
Section 23 Provincial Small Causes Courts
Act. However, now at this distant juncture no
useful purpose would be served by adopting
the said course. Supreme Court in Shamim
Akhtar vs. Iqbal Ahmad AIR 2001 SC 1 has
held that findings regarding title recorded by
JSCC in the suit in between landlord and tenant
is subject to the result of regular suit based on
title. Same principle will apply when such
finding is recorded by P.A. in a case under
Section 21 of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972.

8. Accordingly writ petition is allowed.
Impugned order passed by lower appellate
court is set aside. However liberty is granted
to the legal representatives of respondent
no.2 to file title suit before regular civil court
3 All] State of U.P. Vs. Surya Lakhan and another
1161
on the basis of the alleged agreement dated
31.10.1975 impleading therein the tenant
petitioner no. 2 also and seeking relief of
eviction against him. If such a suit is filed, it
shall be decided without taking into
consideration any finding recorded by the
prescribed authority in its judgment dated
3.1.1989 or order dated 28.11.1992 passed
by the appellate court in appeal filed against
the order dated 3.1.1989 or in the revision
which was filed against an interim order
passed by the P.A. in the said case.
--------
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 23.09.2013

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE PANKAJ MITHAL, J.

First Appeal No. 122 of 2003

State of U.P.

 ...Appellant
Versus
Surya Lakhan and another...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Pradeep Kumar, S.C.

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri R.D. Shukla

Land
Acquisition
Act- Section
54-first
appeal against order by reference courtawarding interest prior to acquisition landheld-not proper-at most-court can award
interest only consequent to possession on
acquisition-amount of interest modified to
wards-damage/rent for unauthorise use
and occupation-appeal allowed.

Held: Para-11
There is no difficulty in remanding the matter
for awarding damages for the unauthorised
use and occupation of the land prior to the
period of acquisition but the remand of the
matter for the above purpose would add
another
round
of
litigation
consuming
sufficient time and, therefore, to cut short the
litigation, I am of the view that the interest of
the parties would be subserved and the
equities would stand balanced if the interest
on compensation awarded by the reference
court for the period prior to the notification is
converted and is directed to be treated as
damages for for use and occupation of the
said land for the said period.

Case Law discussed:
2004(4) SCC 79; (2005) 12 SCC 443; (2013) 4
SCC 268

(Delivered by Hon'ble Pankaj Mithal, J.)

1. I have heard Sri Udaibhan, learned
Standing Counsel for the appellant and Sri
S.D.Shukla,
who
appears
for
the
claimant/respondent. Sri Shukla, however,
submits that he has no instructions in the matter.

2. In this appeal under Section 54 of
the Land Acquisition Act the judgment,
order and award dated 28.2.1995 passed
by the X Additional District Judge,
Allahabad in LAR No.13 of 1991 has
been assailed on the limited ground that
the reference court has awarded interest
on compensation for the period prior to
the date of notification under Section 4(1)
of the Land Acquisition Act (in short
'Act') which is not permissible in law.

3. The notification under Section 4(1) of
the Act was issued on 7.12.1987 but admittedly
and as per the findings of the reference court
possession of the land was taken over in
January, 1982. The reference court while
enhancing the rate of compensation has
awarded interest on it from January, 1982 for a
period of one year at the rate of 9% and
thereafter at the rate of 15% p.a.

4. The short question arising in this
appeal is whether the reference court is
justified
in
allowing
interest
on
compensation for the period prior to