# Murari Lal and others v. IIIrd Additional District Judge, Kanpur Nagar and others

- **Citation:** (2002) 2 ILRA 416
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2002-01-16
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 253 of 2001
- **Bench:** A.K. Yog
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/murari-lal-and-others-v-iiird-additional-district-judge-kanpur-nagar-and-others-39912
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972- Section 16 (i)
(b) - Release Application- the matter of
release is only between the rent control
authority and the land land/owner- the
erstwhile
tenant
or
unauthorized
occupant has no concern or locus standi
to contest the release matter.
Held- Para 12 and 13

It is aboundantly clear that petitioners
have no locus standi to challenge the
order of release dated 8.2.1994 passed
by delegated authority (respondent no.
2) and subsequently affirmed by the
Revisional Court (respondent no. 1) vide
its judgment and order dated 4.10.2001.

In view of the above, Murari Lal (since
deceased),
through
his
legal
representatives,
namely
the
present
petitioners nos. 2 to 4 are not entitled to
invoke
extra
ordinary
discretionary
jurisdiction
under
Article
226,
Constitution of India.

## Text

INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2002
416
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 16.01.2002

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE A.K. YOG, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 253 of 2001

Murari Lal and others
 ...Petitioners
Versus
IIIrd Additional District Judge, Kanpur
Nagar and others
 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Sanjai Kumar

Counsel for the Respondents:
S.C.

U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972- Section 16 (i)
(b) - Release Application- the matter of
release is only between the rent control
authority and the land land/owner- the
erstwhile
tenant
or
unauthorized
occupant has no concern or locus standi
to contest the release matter.
Held- Para 12 and 13

It is aboundantly clear that petitioners
have no locus standi to challenge the
order of release dated 8.2.1994 passed
by delegated authority (respondent no.
2) and subsequently affirmed by the
Revisional Court (respondent no. 1) vide
its judgment and order dated 4.10.2001.

In view of the above, Murari Lal (since
deceased),
through
his
legal
representatives,
namely
the
present
petitioners nos. 2 to 4 are not entitled to
invoke
extra
ordinary
discretionary
jurisdiction
under
Article
226,
Constitution of India.

(Delivered by Hon'ble A.K. Yog, J.)

1. One Ganesh Shankar Rawat,
claiming to be the owner to premises no.
105/28, Prem Nagar, Kanpur Nagar filed
release application under section 16 (i) (b)
of U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972/ before
Delegated Authority/Rent Control and
Eviction Officer, Kanpur Nagar on
4.2.1992/ Annexure 2 to the writ petition,
on the ground that he was in possession of
the aforesaid entire premises except one
tin shed room with open terrace, which
was earlier in the tenancy of his tenant
Sahdeo Prasad, who died about four years
prior to the filing of the present release
application leaving his widow, Smt. Bitto
Devi who lived with her daughter before
shifting to her own house- plot no. 65
Sanjay Gandhi Nagar Naubasta, Kanpur
about four months prior to the filing of the
release application. In para 4 of the
release application, it is also contended
that the said Bitto Devi had handed over
unlawfully the possession of tin shed
room with open terrace to one Murari Lal
without the consent of the owner (Ganesh
Shanker Rawat- respondent no. 3) and
that said Murari Lal illegally occupied the
accommodation in question without any
allotment. It is also stated that the owner
or the premises had filed a suit before the
civil court for eviction of the said Murari
Lal from the accommodation in question
against certain portion of the said
premises other than the accommodation in
question
pending
in
the
court
of
A.C.M.M. IXth Kanpur.

2. It may be noted that Murari Lala
died during the pendency of the release
proceedings
and
hence
legal
representatives/heirs of said Murari Lal
were substituted. Petitioner nos. 2, 3 4,5
and 6 proforma respondents/heirs of said
deceased Murari Lal. Petitioner no. 1
Murari Lal, even though i.e. is dead.

3. The Rent Control Inspector
submitted report dated 14.2.1992 in
2 All] Murari Lal and others Vs. IIIrd A.D.J., Kanpur Nagar and others
417
pursuance to the directions given by the
Delegated Authority (Annexure 4 to the
petition). The Rent Control Inspector
found that Murari Lal was in possession
of the accommodation in question. He
also noted that earlier Sahdeo Prasad was
the tenant and after having died, his wife
Bitto Devi continued to reside therein as
tenant. The Rent Control Inspector also
noted vide para 2 of his report that Bittoo
had handed over possession to said
Murari Lal being in collusion with each
other and that Bittoo Devi had removed
all her goods and shifted to her own house
at house plot no. 60 Sanjay Gandhi Nagar
Naubasta, Kanpur Nagar and ever since
the said Murari Lal was in unauthorized
possession of the accommodation in
question.
The
aforesaid
information
solicited by the Rent Control Inspector
was supported by the statement of one
Bishun Sarup Saxena R/o 105/3 B, Prem
Nagar, Kanpur Nagar. The Rent Control
Inspector vide para 4 of his report also
noted that Murari Lal claimed to be coowner of the house in question.

4. Murari Lal thereafter filed his
objection dated 7.9.1992/Annexure -5 to
the writ petition. There is pleading in the
petition, that no counter reply to the said
objection filed by Murari Lal, was filed
by Ganesh Shanker Rawat (respondent
no. 3). Learned counsel for the contesting
respondent/Caveator - applicant Sri Atul
Dayal, however, made a statement that a
counter reply was filed denying the
allegation of Murari Lal that he was
owner of the house in question. Sri Atul
Dayal further informed this court that a
regular suit for eviction of Murari Lal was
filed
by
Ganesh
Shankar
Rawat,
respondent no.3 on the ground that he was
merely a licensee of some of the portions
of
the
premises.
(apart
from
the
accommodation in question).

5. At this very juncture, this Court
must make a note of the fact that the
petitioners have not approached this Court
with clean hands, inasmuch as the
petitioners
deliberately
withheld
the
relevant facts by concealing them as well
as the documents i.e. Counter reply filed
by Ganesh Shanker Rawat against his
objection. On the other hand, they
deliberately made an attempt to represent
as
if
the
said
objections
were
uncontroverted on relevant issues. This is
nothing but grossest abuse of process of
Court, particularly while invoking the
jurisdiction of this court under Article
226, Constitution of India. Sri Vijay
Prakash, Advocate assisted by Sri Sanjay
Kumar, learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the petitioners as well as Sri
Atul Dayal appearing as counsel for the
Caveator/Contesting respondent no. 3
have made a statement that regular suit
has been decreed and the appeal against it
by Murari Lal (since deceased through his
legal
representatives)
was
initially
dismissed in default but restored and
today is the date fixed for delivery of
judgment as per statement of Sri Vijay
Prakash, Advocate.

6. The Delegated Authority, vide, its
judgment and order dated June 5, 1993
declared vacancy (Annexure 2 A to the
petition) and thereafter allowed the
release application filed by Ganesh
Shankar Rawat, respondent no. 3 vide, its
judgment and order dated March 8, 1994
(Annexure 2 to the Writ petition).

7. Feeling aggrieved, aforementioned
Murari Lal filed Rent Revision No. 46 of
1994 under section 18 of U.P. Act No.
INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2002
418
XIII of 1972 and the same has been
dismissed, vide judgment and order dated
6.10.2001 passed by III Additional
District Judge, Kanpur Nagar (Annexure
1 to the writ petition).

8. The petitioners (legal heirs of
deceased Murari Lal) have filed this
petition praying for issuance of a writ of
certiorari to quash the aforementioned
impugned judgment and order dated
6.10.2001 passed by III Addl. District
Judge, Kanpur Nagar (Annexure 1 to the
petition) arising out of the impugned
judgment and order dated 8.3.1994 passed
by
Additional
City
Magistrate/Rent
Control & Eviction Officer, Kanpur
Nagar (respondent no. 2), copies whereof
have been filed as Annexure 1 and 2 to
the petition respectively.

9. It may be noted that an
amendment application has also been
filed on behalf of the petitioners praying
for certain amendments/corrections in
para 14 and ground no. (iii) of the writ
petition by deleting words 'of affidavit'
and substitute them by the words ' and
affidavit in support thereof' in 8th and 9th
lines respectively. The other prayer is to
issue a writ for quashing the finding
regarding status of the petitioners while
passing the order of vacancy dated
5.6.1992
(Annexure
2
-A).
The
amendment application is allowed, and
the petition shall be deemed to be
corrected accordingly.

10. Learned counsel for the
petitioners has made two fold arguments
before this Court. Except the said two
points, no other plea has been raised
before this Court, probably realizing that
all other grounds contained in para 20 of
the writ petition, do not indicate manifest
error apparent on the face of record and
that
these
grounds
shall
require
appreciation of evidence, which is not
normally permissible by this Court while
exercising its jurisdiction under Article
226, Constitution of India.

11. Learned counsel for the
petitioners is seeking to challenge by way
of amendment of the petition, the order
dated
5.6.1992
declaring
vacancy
(Annexure 2 A to the petition). The
petitioners can not be permitted to
challenge
the
said
order
declaring
vacancy which was passed way back in
June, 1992. There is no explanation for
the delay in challenging the said order.
The petitioners are guilty of laches. It is
obvious that this order is sought to be
challenged by way of amendment of the
petition as an after thought. This Court
can not loose sight of the fact that the
order of declaring vacancy has been
challenged
by
the
petitioners
by
approaching court under Article 226,
Constitution of India. There is no
pleading whatsoever that petitioners were
given no advice to challenge it. There is
another aspect of the matter, namely,
matter of release under Sec. 16 of the Act
is only between the Rent Control
Authority and the land lord/owner. The
erstwhile
tenant
or
unauthorized
occupant,
after
vacancy
has
been
declared, has no concern or locus standi to
contest the release matter.

12. In view of the above, it is
aboundantly clear that petitioners have no
locus standi to challenge the order of
release
dated
8.3.1994
passed
by
Delegated Authority (respondent no. 2)
and
subsequently
affirmed
by
the
Revisional Court (respondent no. 1) vide,
its judgment and order dated 6.10.2001.
2 All] Uttam Chandra Vs. VIIIth A.D.J., Agra and others
419
As far as the question of status of
deceased Murari Lal (now represented
though
his
legal
representatives-
petitioners nos. 2 to 6 and proforma
respondents nos. 4 and 5) is concerned,
the facts of the case speak for themselves.
It is not disputed by the petitioners that
Sahdeo Prasad was erstwhile tenant and
Bitto Devi being his wife became tenant
but shifted to her own house no. 62
Sanjay Nagar, Kanpur Nagar. There is not
even an iota of evidence that Bitto Devi
had ever paid rent to Murari Lal. Murari
Lal has no allotment order in his favour
and thus a trespasser who took law in his
own
hand
and
occupied
the
accommodation in question. Admittedly,
decree in original suit no. 1108 of 1987 is
in existence against the said Murari Lal.

13. In view of the above, Murari Lal
(since
deceased),
through
his
legal
representatives,
namely,
the
present
petitioners nos. 2 to 6 are not entitled to
invoke
extra
ordinary
discretionary
jurisdiction
under
Article
226,
Constitution of India.

14. Apart from it, the Revisional
Court has referred to a decision in the
case of Ashok Kapil Versus Sana Ullah
(dead) and others reported in 1996 (2)
Allahabad Rent Cases, 620 (paras 4 to 11)
wherein the Apex Court held that in case
rent control proceedings were initiated by
the District Magistrate, when the premises
had roof, the District Magistrate shall not
be ceased to have jurisdiction to pass an
allotment order in respect of it, even if it
becomes
subsequently
a
roofless
structure. The ratio of the decision is
'hence in the normal course respondent
can not secure assistance of a court of law
for enjoying the fruit of his own wrong.'
The reasoning of the said decision is that
incase
an
accommodation
is
being
removed or damaged by a voluntary act of
the owner/land lord, the same can not be
permitted to snatch and deprive the Rent
Control
Authorities
to
allot
an
accommodation.
However,
the
said
decision will not apply to the facts of a
case where roof of a certain building falls
down of its own. The petitioners concede
that this case is against them. I find no
manifest error apparent on the face of
record in the impugned order dated
8.2.1994 passed by the respondent no. 2
and the same is also affirmed by
Revisional Court's judgment and order
dated 6.10.2001.

15. In view of the above, it is not a
fit case in which an interference by this
Court under Article 226, Constitution of
India is warranted. The petition lacks
merit and is dismissed in limine.

16. No order as to costs.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD: 5.3.2002

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE ANJANI KUMAR, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 8546 of 1991

Uttam Chandra

...Petitioner
Versus
VIIIth Additional District Judge, Agra
and others

 ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Pradeep Kumar
Sri Swapnil Kumar

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
S.C.
Sri Prakash Gupta